OVERSIGHT OF CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

(113–20) 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 28, 2013 (Madera, California) 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

OVERSIGHT OF CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–259 PDF 2013

OVERSIGHT OF CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

(113–20) 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 28, 2013 (Madera, California) 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Dan Richard, Chairman of the Board, California High-Speed Rail Authority ... 7 

Kole Upton, Vice President, Preserve Our Heritage ............................................ 7 

Doug Verboon, Chairman, Kings County Board of Supervisors .......................... 7 

Anja Raudabaugh, Executive Director, Madera County Farm Bureau ............... 7 

Louis S. Thompson, Chairman, California High-Speed Rail Peer Review 

Group .................................................................................................................... 7 

Al Smith, President and CEO, Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce .... 7 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Dan Richard: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Answers to questions from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ............................................................... 71 

Kole Upton, prepared statement ............................................................................ 78 

Doug Verboon, prepared statement ........................................................................ 104 

Anja Raudabaugh, prepared statement ................................................................. 107 

Footnote 2: Petitioners Opening Brief 2013 ................................................... 109 

Footnote 2: Reply Brief 2013 ........................................................................... 118 

Footnote 4: Fresno to Bakersfield DEIR/EIS Comment Letter by Merced 

and Madera Farm Bureaus, 2013 ................................................................ 152 

Footnote 6: CHSRA 2012 Business Plan, pp. 3–5 .......................................... 169 

Footnote 7: Hanna Declaration Letter, October 2012 ................................... 171 

Footnote 8: Petitioner’s Preliminary Injunction Brief, 2012 ......................... 176 

Louis S. Thompson: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 237 

Answers to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida ............................................................. 243 

Al Smith: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 247 

Answers to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida ............................................................. 251 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

request to submit 55 letters in support of the California high-speed rail 

project from entities including California elected officials, chambers of commerce, building and construction trades, and citizens ...................................... 256 

Dan Richard, Chairman of the Board, California High-Speed Rail Authority: 

Letter dated May 28, 2013, responding to letter dated May 21, 2013, 

from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 8 

Letter providing supplementary information to spoken remarks, dated 

July 9, 2013, to Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California .................................................................................. 375 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Shelli Andranigian, on behalf of the Andranigian family and Andranigian 

Farming, letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, June 27, 2013 ....................................... 378 

Michael J. Brady, Attorney at Law, written statement ....................................... 381 

Page

IV 

James R. Janz, President, Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 383 

Jodi Nagel, President, Associated Builders and Contractors of California, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 385 

Jeff Taylor, letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, June 27, 2013 ....................................... 390 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 81259.001

May 24, 2013 

SUMMARY OF SUJUECT [\TATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Members, Subcol1lmittee Oil Railroads, Pipelines, and I !aZHrlIOlIS Materials 

Majority StalL SUllCOllllllittec on Railroads, Pipeline:;, and Ilazurclous Materials 

Subcommittee Fiellllrr::arill~~l~"O\'c:rsiBh( of Cali romia HighSpy,'C(IJ~'lil':,~, __ _ 

PURPOSE 

On Tuesday, May 28, 20t], ill Madera, CaliCornia, the SUhC01111l1itke Oil Railroads, 

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will receive testimony regarding the status of the Calif()rniu 

High Speed Rail Project (projcd). The project has tluctuatcd in its costs, compiction dates, and 

its goals since 2008 alld the witllesses will present testimony regarding updates 011 [he project 

and somc concerns that still remain. 

The Cali fbrnia High Speed Rail Authority ((,[lSRA) was created in 1996 as a s(ale entity 

charged with developing a high-speed train system Cor the slate Its first plan f()\, a trail1 systcm 

IVas put forth in 2000, and [he ei[izens o['l:alifornia approved bonding authority for the system in 

the amount oi$9')) billion thl'Ough the Proposition Ii\ ballot measure in 2008. ['1'Op05itiol11A 

allowed for $9 billion in general obligatioll bonds !(-ll' pre~eonstl'\1ctioll and C()l1structioll of the 

high-speed train system and $950 millio11 [(1I' capital il1l1J1'ovcments to existing passenger rail 

systems that would help riders COll11ectto tbe high-speed train system. Proposition I A also 

established certain requirements for tile funding, incluciing a1l10ng other things Ilml: (I) [he train 

be an electric lrain capable or achieving sustained l11axilllUf1l speeds of200 I11ph; (2) the train be 

capable of operating headway llf 5 minutes or less; (3) that thc train achieve specific travel times 

between each station (e.g., San Francisco [0 Los Angeks 2 hours, 40 minutes); (4) thai there 

be no more than 24 sta[io11s: (5) that tile routing follow c,xisting corridors [0 [he extent feasible; 

and (6) that it be buill in lIseable segments, 

In addition to Proposition 1;\ tllllds, the (:I ISRA has been awmcled S3.896 billion 

($2.952 hillion from the American Recovery lind l\cil1\'cstlllcni Act, and $945 Illillion 11'<1111 the 

FY 20l () AppropriatiollO bill) li'ol\l the Iligll-Speed Intercity Pa"cllgl'1 Rail (IISIPR) grant 

program, The CHSRI\ plans to lise its lederal tlmds anLl a portion of tile l'wpllsiti()l1 1 i\ funds [0 
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 81259.002

break ground on the initial construction segment (ICS) "i'the project fi'om north of Fresno to 

north of Bakersrleld (sec attached map) this summer Beyond the lCS the pro.ject has no. 

co.mmitted funding. 

j''llictuaring Costs 

The project has undergone a number of difTerent busincss plans with Co.sts that have 

varied greatly OWl' time. The lirst estimate contained in the 2000 Business Plan was $25 billion 

with a co.mpletion date in 2020. Then on November 7, 2008, three days after Proposition I A was 

approved by California voters, CIISRA released its 2008 Business Plan estimating the projcct 

would cost $33 billion, with $12-16 billion in federal timds, and a eOl11pktiol1 dale of2020. One 

year later in 2009, the estimate jUlliped to $43 billion, assuming $17-1 <) billion in federal funds, 

with a completion date of 2020. In November 20 II, thc CHSRA's Draft 2012 Business Plan had 

the costs skyrockct to a range 01'$98-118 billion, with approximately $52 billion in federal 

funds, and a delayed completioll date of2033. Aller signillcant public criticism, (he CHSRA 

adjusted its costs downward in a 2012 Draft Revised Business Plan to $68 billion, with $42 

billion in fcderal funds, and a cc>mpietion date of2028. While, on its [ace it appears the CIISRA 

was able to save $30 billion ill costs, the CHSRA essentially revised its plan to a "blended 

approach" that did not assume 200 mph capable inti-astmcturc ii'om end-to-encl, but instead used 

shared inJi'astructure in the North and South ends. The Revised 2012 Business Plan admits were 

it to complete a full-build c>ption for Phase I of the project, thc cost would he $91.4 billion. 1 

The Peer Review Group created by Proposition I A reviewed the CllSRA's Revised 2012 

Business Plan and its costs, noting that "Ie lost estimating outside thc Valley remains less ccrtain 

because the scope and alignment are still in nux, , .. land] experience thus far has shown that cost 

estimates tend to grow. There is certainly a possibility that this trend will continue.,,2 

Furthermore, the Peer Review Group noted a "signilicant concern" that overall project costs are 

based on optimal assllmptiolls, and "[iJfthesc assulllPtiolls turn out to be f~\lse, capital costs and 

construction times will increase due to schedule changes alone. '" Therefore, it is quite likely the 

costs could increase above the $(iRA billioll figure estimated by CHSRA in its 2012 Revised 

Busincss Plan. 

In a recent Government Accountability Otflee (GAO) rcview of the projeet, the GAO 

echoed some of the Peer Review Group's concerns, !lnding that "we could not determine 

whcther the [eoslj estimates were unbiased .... To help ensure an unbiased estimate, the Cost 

Guide recommends conducting a systellwtic analysis of the potential risks to the project and their 

likelihood of occurring-called a risk and uncertainty analysis. A risk and uncertainty analysis 

is also a best practice for developing a credible cost estimate .... "~ Due to the lack of a risk ancl 

uncertainty analysis, GAO, like the Peer Review Group, explained "it is not possible to 

determine how the cost estimates might be alTeetcd by such things as delays in acquiring 

] CIISRA, "High-Speed Rail 

2 Letter to 'Ion. Darrt:! 

Speed Rail Peer Revie.\v Group, 

; lei . 

. ] GAO, ;'California Iligh-Spced 

Decisions," March 2013, PI'. 19-20 

Revised 2012 Business Plan," April 2012, p. FS-14. 

President Pro Tem, ct a!. from Will Kctnrton, Chairman, California HighMay I~, 2012, p. 6 (Peel' Review I.etler). 

Rail: Project E)timatcs Could Be Improved to Iletter Inform Future 

Report). 
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 81259.003

necessary rights-of-way or having La pay more for property to keep the project on schedule." 

Finally, GAO found that "[ w Jithout a risk and unceliainty analysis, we cannot be assured that the 

contingencies are accurately calculated, and more importantly, what level of confidence we can 

have in the cost estimates."s 

Funding Sources 

Even if the CHSRA's cost estimates arc precise and set in stone, its funding sources are 

not. Based on the $68.4 billion cost, CHSRA is planning on $55 billion in public-sector funding 

and $13 billion in private-sector funding. Currently, the CHSRA plans to use $8.2 billion ofits 

Proposition IA bond funding to construct the project. In addition, the majority of the federal 

funding provided for the project, approximately $3.5 billion, will be utilized in California's 

Central Valley on the Bakersfield-Frcsno-Merced sections of the Phase 1 project. 6 

As noted above, of the $55 billion in public funds for the project, $42 billion is expected 

to come from the federal government, of which CHSRA only has $3.5 billion. As the GAO 

noted, "the remaining $38.7 billion in federal funds have not been identified in federal budgets or 

appropriations but would amount to an average of more than $2.5 billion annually over the life of 

the project's construction.,,7 To put that number in perspective, the Depaliment of 

Transportation's New Starts transit-funding grant progran1 has averaged $1.6 billion per year 

since 2008, while Amtrak has averaged about $ 1.5 billion per year since 2008. Though CHSRA 

notes that it will not need any further funding from the federal government until 2015, both the 

House and Senate budgets do not include any money for the HSIPR program over the next ten 

years, much less anything for the project specifically. Even the President's budget, which 

includes HSIPR funding, does not include any moncy specifically for the California project. 

Indeed, the Peer Review Group recognized the uncertainty of the funding, noting that the 

assumptions "would require the creation of a ncw federal program to support a national a1U1Ual 

HSRprogram ... [and e]l1actment of such a program will clearly be a challenge in today's 

constrained budget climate." These facts lead the GAO to conclude that "the largest block of 

expected funding for the California project is uncertain."g 

, Id. at20. 

6 The remaining $400 million for construction of the underg1'Ound train box at the Transbay Terminal in San 

Francisco, the north end terminus of Phase 1. 

7 GAO Report, p. 39. 

• GAO Rep011 at p. 40. 
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 81259.004

Ifadditional public funding docs not materialize, the CIISRA has idcntilled the State's 

newly implemented cap-and-trade program as a pol<:ntial source of revenue for the project. 

However, as the GAO has explained. there are a numbc:r of challenges that remain with \Ising 

this funding as a source, GAO noted three specific issues: (1) unccrtaillty of the amounts that 

could he raised ll"lllll the progralll; (2) CHSRA will have to competc with other State funding 

priorities and cannot be assured any funding; and (l)the project may not be eligible to receive 

cap-and-trade funding,9 These uncertainties about back-up funding create further risks for the 

project going forward. 

Moreover, there is no private-sector funding cOlllmitted to the project. Indeed, the 2012 

Revised Business Plan c10es not envision any private sector funding until after the initial 

operating segment (lOS) is complete in 2022, The 2012 Business Plan assumes that onee the 

lOS is operational, it will turn a profit in its iIrst year, and private sector financing will then be 

raised through a concession. Because private-sector tlnancing is dependent upon operational 

profitability, the GAO found that "the Authority may face challenges in attracting private-sector 

funding ifits operating cost estimate and ridership forecasts prove to be optimistic."!O As to 

those operating and maintenance costs, the Peer Review Group has noted that "[tJhc existing 

model is relatively simple and does not reflect the relationship between costs and the level of 

operations as well as il could .. ' [anclJ the overall results of the model appcaroptimistic[, and i]f 

the Authority's model is optimistic, the private sector will be less able to augment public 

investment"!! Given the questions anci ullcertainties regarding the costs of the project, as a 

whole, it is unclear whether the private sector funding source will ever be realized, 

ROlitinK and Alignment 

While the CHSRA has anllounced it wants to break ground on the first portion ofthc 

Fresno to Bakerstleld section of the project in July 2013, it has yet to purchase all of the land to 

begin that construction, Indeed, though CHSRA noticed its award ofthc first construction 

package on May 17,2013, it is unclear through which parcels of land the CHSRA plans to route 

this first construction segment Much of the proposed land parcels outside of the urban areas, are 

primc agricultural land valued at $2R,OOO to $33,000 per acre. While Proposition lA statcd that 

the project should reduce impacts on communities by following existing transportation or ntility 

corridors to the extent feasible, such could very wcllnot be thc case on the agricultural lands 

impacted by this first construction segment. The CI ISRA plans to settle most real estate 

purchases through private contract, but it docs have the right of eminent domain to take people's 

private property, The applicable State laws will dictate the process for each party's appraisals 

and ultimately require ajuclicial determination of wlwt constitutes jllst compensation. 

Depending on the number of disputes and right of way to be condemned, this uncertainty could 

delay the project and increase costs further. 

9 ld. at p. 41. 

10 Id. at p. 42. 

!1 PeC'1' Review Letter, Rt p. 8. 
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 81259.005

INVITED WITNESSES 

M1'. Dan Richmd 

Chairman of the Boord 

California High Speed Rajl Authority 

Mr. Kolc Upton 

Vice President 

Preserve Our Heritage 

M1'. Doug Verboon 

Chairman 

Kings County Board of Supervisors 

Ms. Anja Raudabaugh 

Executive Director 

Madera County Farm Bureau 

M1'. Louis S. Thompson 

Chairman 

Peer Review Group for (he California High-Speed Rail Project 

Mr. Al Smith 

President and CEO 

Fresno Chamber of Commerce 
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 81259.006

Merced 

basin 

Sail to San raml:lIlOO VliIlIey 

410milfls 

(Estimamd completion (#at.: 202f) 
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED 

RAIL 

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON THE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in the 

Madera Community College Center, Auditorium Room AM120, 

Madera, California, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. I ask unanimous consent, members not on the committee be permitted to sit with the committee at today’s hearing 

and ask questions. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

First, let me thank the Madera Community College for hosting 

the subcommittee this morning, and everyone here for helping coordinate this very important hearing. Second, I would like to welcome our guests to lovely Madera County and thank them for 

agreeing to testify here today. 

This hearing is an oversight hearing on the California high-speed 

rail project, and I have several concerns I look forward to exploring 

with the witnesses. 

In 2008, the voters of California approved a $9.95 billion ballot 

measure, Prop 1A, for this project. I was serving in the State Senate at the time and voted in favor of the proposition. What was sold 

to voters was a $33 billion project that would receive equal parts 

financing from the State, Federal Government and private investors. 

Voters were told that they would use existing rail corridors and 

rights-of-way so that we would not destroy valley farm communities and agricultural production. The entire track was to be electrified, and the project was to be built in segments that would be 

profitable and usable individually. The project has changed significantly since 2008, so much so that it is unclear if it conforms to 

the requirements of Prop 1A. 

The first construction package will not be electrified, will not be 

a usable segment, may not meet the time requirements for passenger trips, and uses money designated for high-speed rail on conventional train upgrades. Moreover, at the time of Prop 1A, the 

project was estimated to cost $33 billion and be completed by 2020. 

Since then, the project has undergone significant fluctuations in 

cost and completion date to a high in 2011 of $98 billion, with a 

2 

completion date of 2033, and now a $68.4 billion project with a 

completion date of 2028. 

My concerns about these cost fluctuations were confirmed last 

year when I asked Secretary LaHood at our hearing about whether 

the current cost was the final cost for the project. And he said, ‘‘It’s 

going to be expensive to build the high-speed rail. If that is the figure today, that is the figure today. It’ll be different tomorrow.’’ 

That is just not something that we have agreed to in California. 

Secretary LaHood, in my view, spoke more truth than he may 

have realized as the GAO recently found that, ‘‘We could not determine whether the cost estimates were unbiased because the California High-Speed Rail Authority did not conduct a risk and uncertainty analysis, which not only protects against bias, but also ensures contingencies are accounted for in the costs.’’ Simply put, this 

is a key factor in ensuring cost estimates are as accurate as possible. 

While the costs will likely continue to fluctuate, the project has not established any funding sources beyond the $3.8 billion in Federal tax dollars and the Prop 1A money. Of the $68.4 billion cost, 

the Authority assumes $55 billion will come from public funds, of 

which $42 billion will be Federal taxpayer dollars. Therefore, the 

Authority expects an average of more than $2.5 billion a year from 

the Federal Government to complete this project. This annual 

amount is more than Amtrak’s annual appropriations for its entire 

system nationwide. 

Both the GAO’s recent study of the project and the Peer Review 

Group’s review of the 2012 business plan has expressed concerns 

with the uncertainty of such future funding, given the current 

budgetary climate. Even the State’s backup funding plan, to use 

the Cap and Trade Program, has been recognized as having its own 

set of challenges, leading the GAO to conclude the funding is uncertain. 

Furthermore, in 2008, we, the voters of California, were promised private sector investment in this project. Now in 2013, with 

the project nearly doubled in cost, there is no private money at the 

table. Instead the 2012 business plan assumes $13 billion in private sector investment, but not until 2022 when the initial operating segment is complete. The plan assumes once the IOS is complete, it will turn a profit in 1 year, and so much so that the Authority will be able to sell an operating concession to raise private 

funds. 

These are assumptions that are based upon highly speculative 

estimates, which have been criticized in almost every official review 

of this project. The Peer Review Group, created by Prop 1A, has 

noted that the existing model is relatively simple and does not reflect the relationship between costs and the level of operations as 

well as it could. And the overall results of the model appear optimistic. And if the Authority’s model is optimistic, the private sector 

will be less able to augment public investment. 

Furthermore, while the funding sources are each uncertain at 

best, the Authority also promised in 2008 that the project would 

follow existing transportation and utility corridors to the greatest 

extent possible. Instead, the first construction package will traverse 

prime agriculture land. This land is valued at a range from $28,000 

3 

to $33,000 per acre. I am not sure if this is the amount the Authority budgeted for, but if it is not and they do not pay such valuations, it could lead to further delay through continuous eminent 

domain proceedings. 

The Authority has failed to disclose precisely where the track 

will be laid, roughly a month from when the Authority intends to 

break ground, and no right-of-way has been acquired. No agreement is in place with freight rail regarding its assets, and land 

owners still do not know if train tracks will be coming straight into 

their living room. 

I want to conclude my statement by reiterating that I support 

the concept of high-speed rail. We are seeing it elsewhere around 

the world. We want to make sure that if it is done here in California, it is done right. 

What we have here today in no way reflects the promise that 

was made in 2008 to voters. The Authority has failed to produce 

a $33 billion project, failed to reach agreement on utilizing existing 

transportation corridors, will not deliver fully electrified high-speed 

rail infrastructure, and still has not settled on a precise route 5 

years after Prop 1A was passed. The Authority is asking the Federal Government to pick up a $42 billion tab on a project that was 

approved by California taxpayers. 

Obviously there have been a lot of questions from valley residents, as well as California and the Nation abroad. We are expecting to get a lot of those answers here this morning, especially as 

it pertains to this initial operating segment and the overall Prop 

1A that was passed by voters. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these topics. I 

now call on Mr. Costa for an opening statement. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Chairman Denham, and Congressman Valadao. It is a pleasure for me to join you and the many 

constituents we have here at the community college, which is a terrific asset for the people of our valley. It demonstrates an investment that Californians have made over generations, investments in 

our education system, investments in our transportation system, 

and investments in our water system. 

We in the San Joaquin Valley have faced many challenges since 

our forebears stumbled across the Rockies and found fertile soil 

when they were looking for gold, and now we grow much of the 

world’s food supply. I think we are all proud of that. We all reflect 

generations of families that have come here seeking a better life. 

Certainly that is the story of my family. 

The fact is that today we are living off the investments that our 

parents and that our grandparents made in California as it relates 

to our transportation system, as it relates to our water system, as 

it relates to our schools. And it is time, I believe, that our generation step up and respond to the challenges that our parents and 

grandparents made. By outsmarting and out-innovating whatever 

stood in our parents’ and grandparents’ way, we must do it in the 

same way because it is the greatness of America. Together we 

helped build one of the world’s largest and most complex water delivery systems, but today it is not sufficient to apply to the needs 

of California and the 21st century. That is why I am working so 

4 

hard with many of my colleagues to invest in California’s long-term 

water needs. 

We also created a world-class higher education system, but it, 

too, needs investments. And clearly, we would not be the Golden 

State that we are if it were not for our highways, our ports, and 

harbors, and airports. But yet we need to invest in those transportation systems as well because they are insufficient for the growth 

of California that will have 50 million people. Today we have 38 

million people. We will have 50 million people by the year 2030 and 

beyond. 

So clearly what I am laying out there is that California faces new 

challenges, but they are some of the same challenges our parents 

and grandparents faced when they first came to California, when 

they were raising their families, when they were starting their 

farms and businesses, and trying to create a better California as 

a greater, better United States. California obviously has a transportation system today that most experts will agree is inadequate 

to serve our long-term needs, just as our water system is inadequate. 

In order to accommodate the demand placed upon our State, the 

question is not should we invest. The question is how we should 

invest. The facts are clear: congested highways, especially 99, span 

the entire State, but yet as we get money at the local, and State, 

and Federal level, we continue to try to improve Highway 99, not 

too far from where we are between Chowchilla, and Madera, and 

Merced. We are investing millions of dollars that have taken 1,300 

acres of prime agricultural land, but we do not hear much about 

that. 

One out of every four flights between Los Angeles and San Francisco, which is the busiest short home market in the United States, 

are late by close to an hour or more. And we know the population 

demands in the Bay area and southern California as well as in our 

valley will only continue to grow. Therefore, the transportation 

challenges will only get worse if we do not make the investments. 

High-speed rail is a response to the challenges, and as the chairman said, we see advances of high-speed rail in Asia, in Europe, 

and in parts of this country because it is a good part of an intermodal transportation system, especially between one and 400 miles 

in distance. If you are going less than 100 miles, you should ride. 

If you are going more than 400 miles in distance, you take a plane. 

But where high-speed rail has been most successful in other parts 

of the world is in that niche, and that niche fits California with the 

population densities that we have today, something highways and 

airports cannot accomplish. 

From the time the first shovel hits the ground later this year, the 

project will have, I think, a true economic game changer to this 

State and to this valley. With the high unemployment that we 

have, we desperately need thousands of jobs that this system, I 

think, is going to create over the long term. To illustrate the point, 

we have letters of support here that, Mr. Chairman, I would like 

unanimous consent to enter into the record from local elected officials, from chambers of commerce, from school board members, and 

from citizens. Without objection. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

5 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. 

[The letters of support referenced by Hon. Costa can be found on 

page 256.] 

Mr. COSTA. Agriculture is something that we in this valley feel 

very, very strongly about, and you are looking at a third generation 

family farmer. I know how hard our farmers, dairymen and 

women, and ranchers work. It is literally and figuratively how the 

butter on my bread got put. And so any major investment in any 

major public works project cannot come without the input, without 

the mitigation and the addressing of our major economy, and that 

is agriculture. 

The truth of the matter is that this is an important part of our 

long-term investments, but we must mitigate and we must protect 

prime agricultural land whenever possible, just as we did with the 

expansion of 99, just as we have done with the expansion of 198, 

and any other transportation corridor. Building these major 

projects is obviously not without controversy, and that is why I 

joined with Chairman Denham in asking the Government Accountability Office, the Government’s watchdog, to audit the project. 

After more than a year of review, the GAO reported that the Authority followed best practices in each of the following areas: ridership study, revenue studies, cost estimates, and the analysis of the 

economic impact of the project. 

The Authority, let us be clear, as far as I am concerned, has not 

done everything right, not by a long ways, but they have gotten 

their act together in the last 18 months. I was as concerned as 

many of my colleagues were about the lack of effort in coming together, but I think they have come a long ways. The GAO’s report 

shows that what we have begun to notice over the past year, that 

there they are putting things back in place, and they are listening. 

Let me close. Like our predecessors before us, we can and we will 

solve the challenges before us today. People can always say it is not 

the right time, it costs too much. I wonder if President Lincoln 

were living together in the middle of the Civil War, perhaps the 

greatest difficulty in our Nation’s history, the Nation being torn 

apart, inflation running rampant, trying to figure out how to finance the Civil War, and in 1862, he says we are going to build 

a railroad across the country. You know, today with the talking 

heads, you know, all the news, I can see us: Abe, you know, you 

got to wait until your second term before you build this railroad. 

Well, the fact is he had boldness, he had vision, and that has been 

the spirit of America for our entire history. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and 

trying to ensure that we provide the proper oversight, it is appropriate that we do so, and that we make sure that we try to do our 

very, very best in this effort. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I now call on Mr. Valadao for an opening statement. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Chairman Denham, and thank you, 

Congressman Costa, for allowing me to come to your district. 

Mr. COSTA. You are welcome any time. 

Mr. VALADAO. Good morning. My name is David Valadao. I represent California’s 21st Congressional District. I have only been in 

6 

Congress for about 5 months, but I served 2 years before that in 

the California State Legislature. 

The last 2 years have been kind of a surprise for me because 

when this first came before me, I actually did not have a problem 

with the high-speed rail in general. It became a serious issue when 

the money came from the Feds, when the $3 billion, and then started really rushing the program forward. 

My constituents started to complain once more details came out, 

when they started hearing about losing their Amtrak station in 

their communities, like my Corcoran’s and my Wasco’s, and Hanford. It really started to scare those constituents because it is a 

way that they were able to get up to Hanford or Fresno to see doctors. 

We have got obviously farmers and businesses that are concerned 

with the movement, but we have also got a lot of concerns. When 

I hear from teachers and public safety officials and we talk from 

all the different Government agencies where we have seen so many 

cuts and so many things that affected people in their everyday 

lives. And then they think, well, we are going to spend all this 

money on this project. And so it started to turn me more and more 

in the direction where I am now where I am not a fan of the 

project. 

Then you see a project that I truly do believe that was flawed 

from the day it was first put on the ballot. When you set the ideal 

that the project, the train has to go a certain speed, has to between 

certain communities and at a certain amount of time, I think you 

started to define it in a way that is going to be tough to live up 

to. And I really do believe this project is just off on the wrong foot 

and continued on the wrong foot from the get-go. 

When I look at infrastructure around the United States and 

what is important, I do believe that infrastructure like rail is important. I do believe that infrastructure like ports and freeways are 

important. But I do believe they are important for two reasons, 

one, transport goods and two, transport people. And when we look 

at how we are going to improve our economy here, and it can be 

from manufacturer to agriculture to anything, you produce something, you transport it, and you bring dollars back. And that is how 

you revive our economy. 

And that is why I do not see high-speed rail as a future for us 

just because we only transport people. And when you look at how 

it is going to affect my district with my constituents, and they talk 

about traffic and all these other things, I mean, L.A., San Francisco, I will let their representatives worry about them. I am concerned with Central Valley, and that is where I have always put 

my focus, and that is where is where I will continue to put my 

focus. 

So I look forward to hearing the testimony and coming out with 

some good questions and answers. So I appreciate the opportunity, 

and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Let me quickly discuss some ground 

rules of today’s hearing. First of all, let me invite all those in the 

back of the room, ladies and gentlemen, we have plenty of seats up 

here in front if you would like to come down and grab a seat. We 

7 

expect this hearing to be about 2 hours long. We will have several 

rounds of questioning. 

The way that we question is the green light, you have 5 minutes 

for each Member to ask questions. The yellow light, just like a 

stoplight, it is kind of a yield, start slowing things down. And obviously the red light is stop your testimony and we will move on to 

the next question. 

Our goal here is to ask as many questions as possible so that we 

can get not only to the transparency, but the accountability to voters and taxpayers on where this project is and what it looks like 

in the future. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses here today. Thank you for 

being here. I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your testimony has been made part of the record, the committee requests that you limit your summary to 5 minutes. 

First on our panel is Mr. Dan Richard, chairman of the board of 

directors, California High-Speed Rail Authority. Welcome. I would 

like to first say that as we have looked at this entire project, it has 

changed many times, but the leadership has also changed many 

times. We appreciate your openness and your ongoing work with 

this committee and Members of Congress as well. 

Mr. Kole Upton, vice president, Preserve Our Heritage; Mr. Doug 

Verboon, chairman, Kings County Board of Supervisors; Ms. Anja 

Raudabaugh, executive director, Madera County Farm Bureau; Mr. 

Louis Thompson, chairman, California High-Speed Rail Peer View 

Group; and Mr. Al Smith, president and CEO of the Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce. 

Welcome, and, Mr. Richard, you may start with your opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DAN RICHARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY; KOLE UPTON, 

VICE PRESIDENT, PRESERVE OUR HERITAGE; DOUG 

VERBOON, CHAIRMAN, KINGS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; ANJA RAUDABAUGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MADERA COUNTY FARM BUREAU; LOUIS S. THOMPSON, 

CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PEER REVIEW 

GROUP; AND AL SMITH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GREATER 

FRESNO AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. RICHARD. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, before I start, you 

sent me a letter last week. We have specific responses to that letter, and so if that is possible to make that a part of the record, we 

would appreciate the chance to do that. 

Mr. DENHAM. We will add to that to the record without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

8 


Insert offset folio 7 here 81259.007

BOARD MEMBERS 

Dan Richard 

lynn Schenk 

VJ(ECHAIR'f'EIlS0N 

Thomas Richards 

VlCECHAIAP(RSON 

Jim Hartnett 

Katherine 

Perez-Estolano 

Micha@1 Rossi 

ThomasJ. Umberg 

Jeff Morafes 

CHIEFEXE(VTNEOffKEft 

EOMtJND G. BROWN jR, 

~ CALIFORNIA Y7I High-Speed Rail Authority 

May 28, 2013 

The Honorable leffDenham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham: 

I am wTiting in response to your letter, dated May 21~ 2013, in which you raised several questions 

regarding the high-speed rail project in advance of the Oversight of California High-Speed Rail 

hearing by the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials (Subcommittee). 

First, let me say that I appreciate the chance to fornlaliy respond and hope the answers provided 

below help address the Subcommittee~s questions. We appreciate the Subcommittee}s oversight 

responsibility and welcome an ongoing dialogue between the Subcommittee and the High-Speed 

Rail Authority (Authority) so that we may keep the Subcommittee as informed as possible as we 

implement the project. I have summarized your questions below and provided responses 

immediately following. In addition, there are several attachments enclosed with this letter that 

address some of your questions in more detai1. 

First, the California High-Speed Rail Authority received $3.897 billion infederal tax 

dollars ... please be prepared to discuss a detailed accounting of where these dollars have 

been spent or where they will be spent .. 

The Authority has been awarded $3.48 billion for work on the high-speed rail project as 

managed by the Authority. An additional $400 million was awarded to the Transbay Joint 

Powers Board for work on the Transbay Terminal. 

In July 2012, the California Legislature appropriated all remaining federal funds for project 

planning and construction as part of the 2012-13 State Budget Act not appropriated in prior 

budget acts. This appropriation amounted to approximately $3.29 billion of the remaining 

federal funding awarded to the Authority. Of that amount, $3.24 billion was appropriated 

for acquisition and construction in the Central Valley to be matched by funds from the Safe, 

Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act tor the 21" Century (Proposition 1 A). 

Of the $3.48 billion awarded to the Authority, approximately $146 million has been 

expended for environmental review, preliminary engineering and design, and other related 

work. Funding for other purposes has not been expended, but will ultimately be used 

consistent with the tasks identified in the Authority'S grant agreement with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), most notably construction. Attached is a breakdown of 

170 l Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814" T: (916) 324~1541 • F: (916) 322~0821 ~ www.hsr.ca.gov 
9 


Insert offset folio 8 here 81259.008

expenditures to date by task consistent with the Authority's grant agreement with the FRA 

(Attachment A). 

Second. the Authority has identified the Initial Operating Segment (IDS) - Soulh as the 

preferred initial operating section ... We are interested in knowing down to the parcel, where 

Ihe Authority plans on constructing for the entirety of Phase I of the project. 

On January 14, 2013, the State Public Works Board (PWB) approved the site selection of 

356 parcels to be acquired in order to commence construction on the Merced to Fresno 

section of the project. These parcels provide a corridor extending approximately 24 miles 

from Avenue 17 east of the City of Madera to Santa Clara Street in the City of Fresno, as 

identified in the Authority's preferred alignment, for which a California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed with the State Clearinghouse 

on May 3, 2012, and the FRA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) on September 18,2012. 

These actions authorize the Authority to begin negotiations with the impacted land owners 

for property acquisition. Attached, please find the description and location of each parcel as 

identified and approved by the PWB. (Attachment B) 

Regarding the identification of the parcels needed for the entirety of the Phase I program, 

the Authority has not yet. finalized that information as the environmental process is ongoing. 

Due to the environmental process and the requirements of environmental law, we are not in 

a position to speculate as to which aJignment(s) may ultimately be approved. However, as 

the environmental process continues, the Authority will keep the Subcommittee apprised as 

the PWB approves additional parcels for acquisition. 

Third. relaled 10 the previous question ... What plans does Ihe Aulhority have for the 

acquisition process to ensure that it doesn't lead to dramatic cost over runs and project 

delays? 

A parcel by parcel right-or-way (ROW) acquisition plan was provided to the five 

construction teams as part of the Request for Proposals (RFP) that reflected delayed access 

to parcels and required the bid teams to build their schedule and bid around these potential 

delays. 

Recently, acquisition work was approved to begin by the FRA and four ROW acquisition 

teams under contract have started pursuing ROW acquisitions. As new information 

becomes available, the ROW acquisition dates are continually refined and tracked, and 

trending data is gathered to provide more accurate forecasts for incorporation into future 

contracts. 

In addition, ongoing coordination efforts continue with PWB, the California Department of 

General Services, and the California Department of Finance to streamline the acquisition 

process wherever possible. 

Fourth, cosi continues to be a concern 10 me ... I would like 10 discuss what sleps you think 

are necessary to bring (he costs under your current estimates ... 

First, as I outlined in my written testimony, it is critical to have credible estimates on costs 

and ridership. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), after a rigorous year-long 

review, confirms the Authority's methods are appropriate and its estimates in the 2012 

Business Plan are reasonable. Second, in the 20 12 Business Plan, we redefined our approach 
10 


Insert offset folio 9 here 81259.009

to implementing the system in order to bring down the cost~ provide immediate benefits to 

the taxpayers, and improve integration between the high-speed rail system and California's 

existing transportation infrastructure through a statewide rail modernization program. By 

developing partnerships with existing transportation agencies, the "blended" system brought 

the overall cost ofthe high-speed rail system down by close to $30 billion, 

Third, we have recruited a world class team at the Authority to manage the implementation 

of the program. A critical member of that team is our Chief Program Manager, whose key 

responsibility is to seek cost reductions through value engineering and reconsideration of 

design standards. Fourth, as you are aware, we are utilizing design-build procurement for the 

project, which is a means of seeking efficiency and finding alternative approaches and 

designs. Additionally, we are encouraging competition through our procurement strategies. 

Fifth, we look to the independent Peer Review group as a sounding board and source of 

ideas for refinements in the program to help cut costs. Sixth, we are working with experts 

from around the world, including through working agreements with foreign governments to 

capture and utilize best practices for high~speed rail projects. Seventh~ we are revising our 

contracts with regional consultants and our Project Management Team to include more 

perfonnance criteria, including cost containment and reduction. Eighth, we continually work 

with our regional agency partners to find further opportunities for efficiencies and cost 

reduction. The boltom line is we are constantly working to implement the high-speed rail 

program with a direct eye to achieving efficiencies, controlling costs and saving taxpayers 

money. 

Fifth I remain concerned about the lack of interest from private investors ".I'm lookingfor 

investments in the project seeking some sort of return, not just private companies bidding to 

do work paidfor by the taxpayers. 

The general approach to private sector inveshnent is the same today as it was when AB 3034 

was passed by the California Legislature and put on the ballot as Proposition lA, Since that 

time, we have worked to refine the progmm to position it for effective and significant 

private sector investment. As outlined in my written statement, to understand the private 

sector's specific interest in this program, the Authority has had extensive input from and 

discussions with potential private sector participants. In 2011, the Authority issued a 

Request for Expressions oflnterest(RFEI) and received more than 1,100 responses. The 

responses identified the capability and interest of private entities related to development, 

financing, operations, project scale, risk appetite, and other factors. 

Following up on the results of the RFEI, in January 20 12, the Authority met with eight 

infrastructure investment finns, which confirmed their interest in investing in the program. 

We also had extensive discussions regarding the appropriate timing for private sector 

investment. 

Elements of cost, schedule, and delivery risk are already being transferred to the private 

sector through the use of design-build contracts for the construction that will be starting 

soon here in the Central Valley. As the system is further developed, the Authority will look 

to increase its transfer of risk to the private sector by incorporating an operating 

performance element. The Authority will continue to assess private capital markets, as 

market conditions, financing tools, and expectations change over time. 
11 


Insert offset folio 10 here 81259.010

Finally, as part oj the oversight oj ongoing operations .. .1 am interested in why the winning 

bid received the lowest technical score oj all the bidders, and why - and by whom - the 

decision was made 10 change the qualifications that went into the alVard 

In November 2011, the Authority issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from potential 

bidders. Based on those submissions, five teams were reviewed and determined to be fully 

capable of meeting all legal and technical requirements to perform the work on the project. 

The Request for Proposals (RFP) was subsequently released in March 2012, inviting the five 

teams to prepare and submit formal proposals for Construction Package I (CP I). 

As is typical in design-build procurements, the Authority and the five potential bidders went 

through an iterative process~ in which the bidders raised questions and concerns about 

particUlar provisions of the RFP, and the RFP was then modified through addenda. For the 

RFP for CP I, the Authority issued nine addenda over an eight-month period. The changes 

included in these addenda ranged from highly detailed technical clarifications to broader 

issues relating to liability and the manner in which the Authority would evaluate and score 

the proposals. Each addendum was reviewed by the Authority's legal counsel and the 

Office of the Attorney General, approved by the Federal Railroad Administration, and 

published on the Authority's website available to public review and inspection. One of 

these addenda, Addendum 4, required the Authority to open the bids from all five teams as 

long as each bid was technically sound. 

After the five proposals were submitted to the Authority on January 18,2013, there were 

two separate reviews of the technical portions to ensure that all criteria and requirements 

were met and that the proposers had demonstrated full capability to deliver the project. 

Only after those reviews were completed did the Authority open the price component of the 

bids, in accordance with the procedures established through the RFP process. 

On April 12,2013, the Authority identified TutorlPerini/Zachry/Parsons, a Joint Venture, as 

the best seoring team for the design-build contract for CP I from Madera County to Fresno, 

the first construction segment of the high-speed rail system. On May 17,2013, as consistent 

with the procurement process, the Authority issued the notice of intent to award the contract 

to Tutor Perini/ZachrylParsons. 

The Authority's responsibility is to deliver the high-speed rail program in an open, competitive 

manner, and to do so at best value for the nation's taxpayers. We are committed to a transparent 

process as we work to plan, design, build, and operate the high~speed rail system. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to address some of your questions and concerns. I look forward to working with 

you and the Subcommittee moving forward. Please contact me directly if you wish to discuss any of 

these issues further. 

Sincerely, 

~/?U 

Dan Richard 

Chair, Board of Directors 

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Attachments 
12 


Insert offset folio 11 here 81259.011

Attachment A 

Task 3 Other Related Work 
13 


Insert offset folio 12 here 81259.012

Attachment A 

HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY (2665) 

INITIAL OPERATING SEGMENT, SECTION 1 

MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES 

AVENUE 17-AVENUE 7 Parcel Number 

Parcel Number 035-162-036 

037-030-006 035-162-037 

037-030-007 035-171-001 

037-030-008 035-171-011 

037-030-012 035-171-012 

037-030-013 035-171-003 

037-030-016 035-171-013 

037-060-016 035-171-005 

037-060-017 035-211-006 

037-060-018 035-212-002 

037-060-021 035-232-002 

037-060-022 035-232-003 

037-111-023 034-190-031 

037-111-024 034-210-045 

037-111-025 034-210-049 

037-111-032 034-210-047 

037-111-033 047-070-013 

037-112-003 047-070-014 

037-112-004 047-070-007 

035-030-015 047-080-001 

035-030-003 047-130-026 

035-030-016 047-130-016 

035-030-017 047-130-027 

035-091-016 047-130-028 

035-092-001 047-130-029 

035-092-002 047-130-030 

035-092-010 047-240-006 

035-092-009 047-240-007 

035-092-008 047-240-004 

035-092-012 047-240-003 

035-092-011 047-320-009 

035-092-013 047-320-010 

BNSF Parcel Between 035- 047-320-005 

092-013 AND 035-171-011 047-320-004 

035-102-030 047-330-005 

035-102-031 048-070-008 

035-102-018 048-070-009 

035-102-040 048-080-001 

035-102-020 048-080-003 

035-162-003 048-080-004 

035-1&2-026 048-190-011 

035-162-032 048-190-028 

035-162-025 048-190-029 

035-162-024 048-190-014 

035-162-034 048-200-002 

035-162-035 048-200-003 

-10- SPWB January 14, 2013 10-Day Notice 

Parcel Number 

048-200-008 

048-200-006 

AVENUE 7TO SR-41 

048-200-007 

048-270-009 

048-270-008 

504-010-01 

504-130-22 

504-130-20 

504-130-08 

504-010-15 

504-010-16 

504-050-34 

504-070-33 

504-070-41 

504-070-51 

504-070-52 

504-070-39 

504-10&-02 

504-106-04 

504-106-05 

504-060-73 

504-060-71 

504-060-70 

504-060-75 

504-140-11 

504-091-02 

504-091-03 

504-091-04 

504-080-47 

504-080-66 

504-0BO-67 

504-080-32 

504-080-39 

504-080-38 

504-080-37 

458-133-15 

458-240-30 

458-010-05 

458-240-31 

458-240-33 

458-240-32 

458-240-10 

458-250-10 

458-010-19 

458-250-07 
14 


Insert offset folio 13 here 81259.013

1'----- parcel Number Parcel Number Parcel Number 

458-250-08 508-110-07 449-161-08 

458-010-17 508-110-0B 449-161-04 

45B-250-37 508-110-09 449-161-05 

465-020-23 508-110-48 449-1BO-08 

465-020-13 50B-130-01 449-180-09 

465-020-22 510-050-03 449-180-10 

465-030-18 510-050-04 450-280-01 

465-030-16 510-050-30 450-280-02 

504-080-33 510-050-31 450-280-03 

504-080-69 510-050-39 450-280-11 

504-080-74 510-050-25 450-280-12 

504-080-71 510-050-26 450-2BO-34 

504-080-14 510-060-32 450-280-31 

504-080-46 510-060-33 465-040-23 

505-080-25 510-070-53 465-040-06 

505-080-16 510-070-62 465-040-05 

505-080-21 510-070-63 465-040-31 

505-0BO-22 510-090-45 465-040-04 

508-0:10-04 510-090-46 465-040-03 

508-020-01 510-090-43 465-040-36 

508-020-10 510-090-40 465-040-22 

508-020-11 510-460-05 465-040-21 

508-020-12 510-460-16 467-030-22 

508-020-13 510-460-15 467-030-23 

508-020-14 510-460-14 467-030-19 

508-020-15 510-100-14 467-030-25 

508-020-16 510-100-12 467-061-15 

508-020-17 510-470-0X 467-062-11 

508-020-21 510-470-01 467-062-03 

508-020-23 510-470-02 467-030-17 

508-020-25 510-470-03 467-030-04 

508-030-12 510-470-04 467-030-32 

508-101-18 510-470-05 467-063-18 

508-101-19 510-470-10 467-063-19 

508-102-04 510-470-06 467-063-37 

508-102-01 510-470-07 467-030-29 

508-102-02 510-470-08 467-030-37 

508-102-03 510-470-09 467-030-38 

508-102-35 510-470-11 467-030-03 

508-102-07 510-470-12 467-040-12 

508-102-08 442-122-02 467-040-07 

508-102-10 442-122-15 467-040-06 

508-102-09 442-122-03 467-040-05 

508-110-45 442-122-36 467-040-21 

508-110-46 442-122-05 467-040-04 

508-110-06 449-161-02 467-050-24 

-11- SPWB January 14, 2013 1D-Day Notice 
15 


Insert offset folio 14 here 81259.014

Parcel Number Parcel Number 

467-050-13 450-154-08 

467-081-19 450-155-18 

467-081-08 450-155-17 

467-081-07 450-155-16 

467-081-06 450-155-15 

467-081-05 450-271-12 

467-050-28 450-272-28 

467-082-12 450-272-27 

467-082-01 450-272-14 

467-050-23 450-272-13 

504-010-20 450-272-12 

504-010-21 450-273-26 

504-080-44 450-273-13 

504-080-08 450-273-12 

504-080-09 459-023-55 

506-130-28 459-023-56 

506-130-21 459-023-18 

508-120-18 459-023-59 

509-050-05 459-023-51 

510-050-01 508-110-13 

510-050-02 508-110-10 

508-010-07 508-110-11 

510-050-05 508-110-12 

509-050-06 508-110-14 

509-080-11 458-010-20 

509-0BO-13 459-111-14 

509-080-45 458-250-15 

510-050-06 458-250-25 

442-122-37 458-250-27 

442-122-33 458-250-09 

442-122-34 458-250-23 

442-122-35 458-250-24 

449-020-16 458-240-25 

442-122-24 504-010-09 

442-122-28 467-030-34 

442-122-22 467-071-01 

442-123-05 467-071-02 

442-123-03 

449-162-01 

449-162-02 

449-162-03 

449-162-04 

449-162-05 

449-162-20 

450-280-08 

450-154-09 

-12- SPWB January 14,2013 10-Day Notic" 
16 

Mr. RICHARD. Thank you. Chairman Denham, Congressman 

Valadao, Congressman Costa, I am Dan Richard. I am the chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority board of directors. 

It is a distinct honor to appear before you today. In view of the 

many questions that have been raised about California’s high-speed 

rail plan, I have provided extended and detailed written testimony 

for the record to address these points. In that testimony, I discuss 

why we believe this transportation investment is absolutely vital to 

our economic future here in California, especially given population 

growth and the environmental challenges we face. 

I want to talk today about three main topics in addition to the 

testimony that we filed, and we look forward to your questions. The 

first point is that over the last year, we have developed a new vision and a new approach to this program, one that is more logical 

and in harmony with the State’s rail transportation system. 

Our progress this past year includes the following: one, a better 

business plan. We will build the system in logical phases with each 

segment having funding in place beforehand and each segment 

having standalone utility. And it is a plan that will fully integrate 

high-speed rail into the State’s intercity and urban rail network, 

including sharing corridors where appropriate, and that is an approach we call the blended system. As a result, this new plan generated widespread support and increased confidence, and the legislature appropriated $6 billion to begin construction here in the valley this year. 

Number two, significant improvements in our cost and ridership 

forecasts. We have scrubbed these numbers completely and brought 

in outside experts to review them. As a result, the GAO gave us 

high marks in our cost, ridership, and revenue forecasting methodologies. 

Number three, new leadership with substantial talent and proven experience in infrastructure project management and delivery. 

As a result, the State auditor general, who had been highly critical 

of this program and the Authority as an organization in the past, 

said we have made substantial progress, and she issued a very 

laudatory report. 

Number four, better outreach to many affected communities and 

concerned stakeholders. Frankly, we are just doing a better job of 

listening and providing information. As a result, we have made 

alignment changes that have satisfied a number of concerns along 

the right-of-way, and I am proud to say that we have reached settlements on three of the environmental lawsuits here in the valley, 

all three I should say. This is an effort that we are committed to 

continuing as we go forward. 

That is a short list of our progress to date. Next, I want to briefly 

expand on the benefits of this blended implementation approach to 

building a system. Until about a year ago, the thinking was that 

high-speed rail was its own insular program separate from the existing statewide rail network and other transportation systems. 

Our business plan signaled a dramatic shift from that thinking to 

an approach where high-speed rail is fully integrated with other 

intercity commuter and urban rail systems. This approach is more 

efficient, it lowers costs, it reduces community impacts, and it 

maximizes connectivity and convenience for customers. And we are 

17 

now working in concert with our rail partners, including ACE, L.A. 

Metro, the Amtrak-San Joaquin, Caltrain, and others, to make parallel investments in all of the systems around the State. 

Lastly, I am keenly aware that this committee has concerns 

about our plans to fund and complete the system. We believe we 

have a solid approach to funding this program, one that is appropriate to this stage of project development and consistent with how 

other major infrastructure projects are developed both here and 

abroad. 

Mr. Chairman, our current estimate is that the program will cost about $53 billion measured in 2012 dollars, or $68 billion, as you 

pointed out, in fully inflated dollars over the next 15 years. And we 

are beginning an aggressive effort to bring those costs down. Today we have in hand about $13 billion in funding through a 

combination of State bonds and Federal appropriations, which is 

actually a good first step. But with high-speed rail in California, 

we have an additional opportunity to include significant private 

sector investment, and this is because we are highly confident the 

system will generate net operating cash flows. That is the universal experience of high-speed rail systems around the world that 

once built, once the capital is expended, they generate net positive 

operating cash flows. Our expectation is that by selling the rights 

to private sector operators, we will generate another approximately 

$14 billion net present value for the full build out of the system. 

So the question is not whether the private sector will invest, but 

when. In the absence of project completion guarantees or any type 

of revenue guarantee, they will want to see a proven revenue 

stream. This has been the experience around the world, and GAO 

confirmed that that was also their understanding and experience 

as well, and they said, ‘‘The Authority’s plan is consistent with this 

funding approach.’’ 

Remaining funds will come from a basket of high-value sources, 

such as real estate development around stations. In Japan, this accounts for about 30 percent of their revenues, concessions to lease 

our right-of-way for fiber optic and energy facilities, parking, and 

advertising revenues, and so forth. And finally—I will be very 

quick—the Brown administration has identified State cap and 

trade revenue as a potential backstop for this project, and the highspeed rail project is eligible to receive those revenues. 

Lastly, we do believe it is reasonable for the Federal Government 

to continue investing in high-speed rail, because, like the Interstate 

Highway System, it is good for the economy. However, our approach will not just be to come to you seeking Federal funds, but 

to work with you to find areas where Federal support can leverage 

private sector dollars and help us attract that investment. And in 

that regard, we look forward to working with you on innovative approaches to reauthorizing PRIIA. 

I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 

provide you with a quick update. We look forward to your detailed 

questions. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Richard. 

Mr. Upton? 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a farmer, and I am 

here to—— 

18 

Mr. DENHAM. Push the—— 

Mr. UPTON. How is that? 

Mr. DENHAM. There we go. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. I am a farmer, like I said, so mics are a little 

bit of a mystery to me here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. UPTON. I live on my farm. My son lives on my farm. My 

grandson lives on my farm. It was started by my dad in World War 

II when he got back. It means a lot to us. It is our heritage. It is 

our future. So I am going to give you my experience I have had 

with high-speed rail, which I do not think is dissimilar from other 

farmers here in the Central Valley. 

It started in November 2009 when we got a letter from the Authority saying that our property was in Route A3, and would we 

allow people on the property to do various studies. I called up the 

lady and said, I said, do I have the right to refuse? And she said, 

yes, but why would you want to do that? And I said, well, you are 

not following your own guidelines. This is not a transportation corridor, and it is certainly not minimizing ag land. So we did refuse. 

We then went with some of our fellow farmers to the Authority 

meeting in December 2009. Curt Pringle was the chairman at the 

time, and he said, which I thought was good advice, why do you 

not roll up your sleeves and work with us if you do not like what 

we are doing. So we did. We started working with Mr. Pringle and 

the local folks, and we actually had success. 

In March of 2010, the Authority board voted to eliminate Route 

A3. Hallelujah, we thought we had won. We done good. Well, we 

stayed with the process. We got on these technical committees, and 

we worked with them. 

In June 2010 in Merced, they had a joint technical committee between the Merced to San Jose Consultant Group, Merced to Fresno 

Consultant Group, and the county agencies. And I asked the question, where do we want the Wye? Do we want it north of 

Chowchilla or south of Chowchilla? It was unanimous. The public 

agencies represented wanted it south of Chowchilla. 

Well, a short month later in July of 2010, the consultant group 

and the Authority came out and said, OK, we are going to have it 

north of Chowchilla. So I challenged them, as did others. OK, how 

can you have a public input process, you take it, and then you do 

the exact opposite of what people want? Well, they said, no, the city 

of Chowchilla wanted it. So I called up the mayor, and he said, no 

way, it was not us. So we go back again. They said, no, it was FRA 

wanted it. So we asked the FRA. They did not want to talk to a 

bunch of farmers from California. So we did an FOIA request. It 

took a year to get the answer and to find out, no, they had nothing 

to do with that. 

So in August 2010, the Authority said, well, we have put the 

pencils down. So from August 2010 until December of 2011, we 

were sort of in this process where we worked with them. We got 

resolutions opposing some of the routes, et cetera, et cetera. 

In December 2011, the Authority and the consultant group came 

out with their preferred hybrid route, OK? This hybrid route is 

what you see for the construction in Fresno there and in Madera. 

But in the Wye section, they had one for us as well, and it was a 

19 

worse abomination than what they had before. This moved it from 

Road 13 to a road called Road 12 and 1/4. The only problem was 

Road 12 and 1/4 does not exist. This is a figment of the imagination 

of the Authority. 

So again, we protested, and the board, to their credit, they 

excised out the Wye portion there in the spring and said, we are 

going to move that to Merced, to the San Jose group and let them 

study it. And so in June of 2012, we started working with the 

Merced to San Jose Group, and that was good. They started listening. 

I think the key change, for me anyway, was when they hired 

Diana Gomez as the regional director. She came in late 2012. She 

was a fresh face. She was willing to listen to us. She is a valley 

gal. And she brings a unique perspective because she is used to 

things that do not work very well and a lot of losses because she 

is a big Raiders fan, OK? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. UPTON. So what she did, which nobody else did, she was 

willing to meet with my farm laborers, the guys. I am an equipment intensive farmer, so my guys got good jobs. They have health 

benefits. Their kids go to college. They own their own homes. And 

she met with them, and we had a good discussion afterwards. And 

her point was, why do we have to replace good farm jobs with rail 

jobs? Why do we not have both? Why do we not make the structure 

so it is consistent with our existing infrastructure? And that is 

what we have been saying all this time, and we are hopeful that 

this is what will happen with this project. 

We have several projects or routes that are on the table now, 152 

and Road 18, which will work. You also have two from the old 

days, Avenue 21 and Road 13, which are abominations. We have 

opposed them for 4 years. If you stick that on us, then you may 

as well just kept the old group in because we are back to square 

one, and we are going to start fighting again. 

And I would like to point out a couple of folks that have really 

helped us. Number one, Chairman Denham, I appreciate your efforts in doing this. I appreciate Supervisor Rogers and what he has 

done with us. But I want to point out a couple of folks that are 

strong high-speed rail advocates that have actually worked to try 

to get us together. One is Supervisor John Pedrozo of Merced 

County. He has worked with the Authority and us. The other was 

Dee Dee O’Donnell of your staff. And I got say they are unique. A 

lot of the other folks that are for this thing in the valley just have 

called us names, and that does not help. 

Mr. DENHAM. I told her to try to make you happy, Kole. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. UPTON. OK. Well, now ask Mr. Richard to make me happy 

and get the right routes, and we will be done here, OK? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. UPTON. So in conclusion, the ball is in the high-speed rail’s 

court now, and I am hoping that they do not fumble it. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. Verboon? 

Mr. VERBOON. Good morning. My name is Doug Verboon for 

those of you who do not know me, and I would like to thank the 

20 

staff, the council here. Can you hear me all right? I would like to 

thank Congressman Denham, and Congressman Costa, and Congressman Valadao for letting us come today. I appreciate it. 

Since we last testified in 2011, the situation has worsened. It has 

dissolved into a Proposition 1A voters would not recognize. We 

have chronicled unaddressed concerns in volumes of correspondence. The project ignores environmental precedent in favor of political posturing. 

The county was completely excluded during the corridor refinement process. This exclusion caused the Authority to realize, too 

late, that it chose one of the most well-planned, completely protected, and ag-sustained areas in California to anoint the spine of 

the project. It has steadfastly ignored Kings County ever since, essentially stating it is too late. 

Kings County cannot possibly be the least environmentally damaging project alternative, when only 20 miles east of Highway 99 

and 198 convene with the Visalia Airport. Visalia has tirelessly lobbied to have the Authority open its eyes and receive this perfect 

gift. 

The 2012 business plan may save dollars, at least on paper, but 

also robs the bond money, bestows it on conventional rail, and 

blends the project into the Prop 1A voters would not recognize. 

Sixty-eight billion dollars would allegedly build phase one, plus $32 billion to electrify that 100 miles, and billions more to complete 

phase two. Phase one will shift Amtrak and bypass cities whose 

people and economies have become dependent on them, including 

Hanford, Corcoran, and Kings County. The result is a project that 

will not be electrified, will be standard diesel, will be subsidized, 

will compete with conventional passenger and freight service, will 

travel at 79 miles an hour, not the 200-plus indicated in Prop 1A, 

will not provide a nonstop L.A. to San Francisco Prop 1A required 

trip, will not be green, but it will seek cap and trade money claiming it is, will rely on speculative funding sources, will not have additional Federal money, will not entice venture capital, will not 

have independent utility, will clog the cash-strapped courts with 

condemnation cases, will be politically expedient for some, but at 

the cost of the environmental justice in Prop 1A. 

The project has no construction permit, but claims it will start 

construction in July of 2013. It does not have ARRA required 

agreements with Burlington Northern Santa Fe or Union Pacific. 

It does not have the necessary environmental permits to complete 

even the 29-mile initial construction segment, let alone drift into 

the Fresno-Bakersfield segment has yet to be certified. 

Even so, the Authority certified to the legislature that it will in 

the future comply with the required environmental thresholds, 

even though Prop 1A requires all environmental certifications be 

obtained for Merced to Palmdale before bond approval. 

Senator Rosenthal recently asked Chairman Richard if, for all 

this money, we are going to get our high-speed rail. He said, no, 

but you are going to get a lot. If they cannot comply with Prop 1A, 

they must stop. The Federal funding agreement requires compliance with State law. 

On January 3rd, 2012, the Prop 1A Commission Peer Group reported to the State legislature, ‘‘We cannot overemphasize the fact 

21 

that moving ahead on the high-speed rail without credible sources 

of adequate funding, without a definite business model, without a 

strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the 

State, and without the appropriate management resources represents the fiscal risk on the part of the State of California.’’ 

High-speed rail in California, as defined in Prop 1A, is a worthy 

objective, and one that my county initially supported so long as it 

allowed existing transportation corridors. It has developed into a 

project voters would not recognize, and given the truth, the Governor would probably decline to endorse. This should concern the 

Authority’s Federal partner, the Federal Railroad Administration. 

This project needs more oversight, more accountability, and more 

common sense, and less antics. In reflection on its implication, I 

am reminded of the children’s story of the three little pigs and the 

consequences of building a house of straw. 

That is all I have to say. I would like to make a comment. You 

know, Kings County has been fighting the high-speed rail for about 

21⁄2 years, and we were not against it from the beginning. But the 

high-speed rail put us in a position we are in today for lack of coordination into our county. We wanted to have the right to protect 

our farm ground and a right to work with high-speed rail to get 

the proper alignment through our county, and they have neglected 

us. And we have not seen the High-Speed Rail Authority in our 

county, in our chambers for 11 months, and we have been trying 

to every single month to work with them to get this resolved. And 

now it is almost too late. So thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Verboon. 

Ms. Raudabaugh? 

Ms. RAUDABAUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honorable 

members of the valley. The Madera County Farm Bureau appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of its 1,200 

members in Madera County. Madera County ranks 10th in the 

State for gross agricultural production value and fourth in the entire world for the production of specialty crops. We receive no Federal subsidies. We pay our employees entirely off the profit and the 

sweat of our crop. 

Agriculture and ag related businesses account for over 76 percent 

of Madera County’s employed, and also represent nearly 67 percent 

of Madera County’s GDP. The Farm Bureau represents approximately 95 percent of all agricultural interests in Madera County. 

The California high-speed train project has a lengthy history in 

Madera County, which dates back to 2009, as my colleague, Kole 

Upton, mentioned. These design options that were originally presented included a variety of alignments that deviated significantly 

from major transportation routes, crossing agricultural lands and 

prime farm lands, ultimately causing what now appears to be an 

insurmountable level of mistrust, suspicion, and anger towards the 

project by the agrarian community. 

The final alignment selection in Madera County in May of 2012 

yielded thus far an unprecedented level of agricultural property acquisition, and irreparable damages to agricultural operations in 

Madera County. The final alignment again in Madera County 

leaves State Route 99 as much as 5 miles to the east in Madera, 

which bifurcates, dissects, and severs approximately 500 different 

22 

ag operations. Four hundred and thirteen of those affected are in 

Madera County. The results, although yet to be defined, is certain 

to be a loss of businesses, revenue, jobs, and ultimately land that 

is available for agriculture. 

In 2012, once the final alignment was selected, the Madera 

County Farm Bureau, the Merced County Farm Bureau, Preserve 

Our Heritage, the Chowchilla Water District, Fagundes Brothers 

Dairy Entities, and originally Madera County, filed a lawsuit 

against the Authority, which claimed statutory violations under 

CEQA and the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. 

A day before the litigation was scheduled to be heard in Sacramento Superior Court, the petitioner parties, along with the Authority, agreed to a settlement. The settlement is a comprehensive 

agreement that includes major facets associated with right-of-way 

acquisition and land acquisition processes. It also includes additional direct mitigation acreage related to indirect effects of the 

project in the form of an agricultural buffer running the length of 

the tracks, both to the east and west, 25 feet wide throughout ag 

land in the valley. 

The settlement also provides for a comprehensive ag land preservation program, which is called the Ag Land Mitigation Fund, 

which is designated to set aside acreage to offset unforeseen impacts to agricultural properties from the project. 

Moving forward into the future, the question of how smooth the 

land acquisition process will proceed remains unanswered. The Authority must begin by honoring its commitments in the settlement 

agreement and ensuring that land owners are given the best possible list of options for, first, maintaining their agricultural operations viability, and then and only then receiving just compensation for the impacts the project will cause. 

Approximately 80 percent of the landowners affected along the 

initial construction segment are Farm Bureau members. To date, 

none of them have expressed a willing desire to sell. The situation 

is most likely going to be one in which the majority of these property owners are going to be unwilling sellers. And given that the 

average price of farm ground in Madera is $25,000 an acre, the 

Farm Bureau is concerned about the allocation of costs associated 

with the Authority’s business plan, and that the actual payments 

will be substantially lower than what should be required. 

The Farm Bureau would also like to ensure that there is adequate funding sources to purchase these properties well before any 

appraisal or offers are made. Our members are already suffering 

from an inability to obtain operating loans simply by being in the 

path of the project’s alignment. Unfortunately, no amount of money 

or offsite mitigation can replace a farmstead that has been in the 

family for generations. The Farm Bureau is highly alarmed that 

this project may cause more irreparable harm before it can be completed. 

That is my statement, but I would like to make a comment. You 

have not heard about any ag acquisition or any complaints about 

ag acquisition for Caltrain’s projects because those projects have 

been part of the county or local general plan for decades. This 

project has not. That is why we have not been screaming about 

those. 

23 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman Denham, Mr. Costa, Mr. Valadao, I 

am happy to be here today representing the Peer Review Group of 

which I am the chairman. I hope we can add something useful to 

these discussions. 

The Peer Review Group has supported the concept of high-speed 

rail, but we have had, and we still have, a number of concerns, 

which we have discussed in our reports. Our objective has been to 

strengthen the project, but also to make sure that everyone understands the risks. 

We have been especially concerned to make sure that people 

know what we are getting into because my experience is that if you 

do not do that at the beginning, sometime in the next year is when 

people begin to realize how difficult it is. The project loses credibility. We want to avoid that if we can. 

Most of our concerns have been covered in your own summary 

of the subject matter statement, which was excellent. And I am not 

going to try to elaborate on those. I just want to list them briefly 

to put them all on the table. 

First, the source of complete project funding does not exist. Beyond the existing sources of funding, there is no Federal money, 

and there are no other sources. There is a possibility of a new Federal program. There is a possibility of using the State’s cap and 

trade program. There could be a sales tax. Indeed the 2000 business plan depended on a sales tax. There could be a fuel tax. There 

could be private money. It will be delayed until later. Obviously we 

do not advocate any of these, but the point is that some of them 

will have to be developed or the project will not be able to go beyond the Central Valley. 

The second was the risk of what happens if it does not go beyond 

the Central Valley, and that risk still remains, but we feel that it 

has been mitigated very significantly by also beginning to work on 

the ends where the immediate ridership in the immediate population end benefits are. 

As Chairman Richard said, the planning context of this project 

was backwards. That is, we started with the wonderful idea of 

high-speed rail, and then we began to think about what to do about 

it if we got it. It should have been the other way around, and it 

is now. The State has issued a new State rail plan, which begins 

to put it into the right kind of context and gives us more confidence 

that it will be served by local transport. 

There was the issue of phasing and blending of the project to 

make sure that it got done in the right sequence. The Authority’s 

proposal to build south first, we believe, was correct. That is the 

right way to get started. The phasing and the blending on both 

ends makes a lot of sense because it reduces the disruption of the 

project to the urban areas. 

Business model, we were concerned about. That is how you are 

going to manage the project because, among other things, the raising of private sector money is crucially dependent on the business 

model. The 2014 business plan we understand will spend a lot of 

time on the business model, and we support that. 

24 

As the management resources, this project at its peak will be 

larger than Caltrain’s. It will have a larger construction effort that 

Caltrain’s, and we have been concerned all along that it would 

have the management resources it needs to manage the project. 

They have done two things. First, the adoption of the design bill 

contracting process, if it works the way it is supposed to, will shift 

a lot of the burden to the contractors. And secondarily, we give 

them considerable credit because the priority of the project has 

been raised, and as far as we can see, they have gotten a lot of the 

State resources that they needed. But design bill contracting has 

risks as well as benefits, and we certainly will want to see the next 

couple of the years of the project. 

Demand forecasting has been lowered a little bit, and the peer 

review panel has made a number of suggestions. Since there are 

no decisions to be made in effect until the decision to go south, we 

can take the time to get the demand forecasting better, and we can 

collect the data that we need to make a much better demand forecasting model. 

Capital costs, as you know, are based as of now on preliminary 

estimates of only one bid. There is no experience with the capital 

costs, so we will just have to see. Right now, no one has great confidence in those forecasts. The O&M model they are going to work 

on, and we believe they will improve it. 

Let me summarize this with two points. First of all, high-speed 

rail in California is an immense project. We should not kid ourselves. It is a giant project. The high-speed rail projects in Europe 

and Japan and in other places in Asia have been managed by an 

ongoing railway that knew what it was doing. The High-Speed Rail 

Authority has got a very steep learning curve, and it will be a real 

challenge. 

Second, though, they have made, as others have said, manifest 

progress in getting this project under control, the project of September 2011 and the project today is very, very different. And 

many of the issues that we had have been addressed. We stress 

that a number of things will not be resolved for a number of years, 

but at least they have addressed many of them, and they have 

made a lot of progress. 

Finally, our role, we think, is to work hard to identify issues and 

to make sure all of the right questions are on the table. And I hope 

we can do that, and I hope that in this meeting and in others we 

can be useful to you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Chairman Denham, Congressman Costa, Congressman Valadao, thank you very much. I am Al 

Smith, and I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

As the president of the Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce, I 

work closely with the business community, and I guess I have a decent understanding of our Central Valley’s economy. This Fresno 

chamber strongly supports the high-speed rail project for California. It will create jobs now and in the future, and it will make 

doing business in our valley more attractive and efficient. 

California’s unique geography and expected population growth 

makes our State perfectly suited for this project. Central California 

25 

is considered the bread basket of the world, as was noted. Its fertile 

soils generate billions of dollars of economic stimulus and thousands of jobs. Fresno, Madera, and Tulare Counties alone generate 

over $14 billion of the $32 billion ag dollars statewide. 

But this area is almost totally dependent on agriculture. Unfortunately, it can be negatively impacted with drought conditions and 

environmental challenges, as we are witnessing even as we speak. 

The guarantee of ag’s sustainability year in, year out is always 

fragile. As a result, there is an urgent need to diversify our economic base. 

In the Central Valley, unemployment ranges in excess of 15 percent. That is double the nationwide average. Some west side cities 

have unemployment as high as 40 percent, so job creation is paramount. The development of high-speed rail has the opportunity to 

create 20,000 jobs for each billion dollars invested, and a lot of 

those jobs, thousands of those jobs, will be in the Central Valley. 

It will be a boost to small business with 25 percent of those funds 

targeted to them, and to disabled veterans. Should the maintenance facility be located in our area, it would create another 1,500 

high-paying permanent jobs, bringing ancillary businesses and support services with them. 

This part of California could become the epicenter for future 

high-speed rail projects as it expands across the Nation. Businesses 

large and small in the San Joaquin Valley support high-speed rail. 

Jackie Emerian is a lifelong resident of Fresno, a business owner 

since 1967. He is the chief executive officer of Val Print, a marketing and design company based in Fresno. Three of the company’s properties will be affected by the rail alignment, and 

throughout this process, he has found in the High-Speed Rail Authority a willing and supportive partner. He knows that his shortterm sacrifice will serve the greater good, ensuring a brighter future for the valley. 

The same with Helen Chavez-Hansen, the owner of La Tapatia 

Tortilleria, who also has three properties affected by the project. 

She states that the high-speed rail staff has been extremely responsive in her questions and to help develop options for redirecting 

traffic flow in order to provide continuous operations. 

Now, about that unique geography. As you know, this State is 

long and slender. From north to south, it is 770 miles. That is the 

equivalent of driving from Chicago to Jackson, Mississippi. The distance from Los Angeles to San Francisco is an exhausting 382 

miles, so that’s 6 hours’ drive. The distance from San Diego to Sacramento is a painful 504 miles. That would be an 8-hour drive. Our 

38 million inhabitants are split with 60 percent living in the southern part of the State and 40 percent in the north. 

California’s citizens and businesses in the south need to interface 

regularly with its northern counterparts. Primarily, San Francisco 

is a financial center, and Sacramento as its government. Our transportation choices are limited: automotive, air, Amtrak, bus, and 

rail. We suffer with three of the top five most congested urban 

areas in the United States, costing us approximately $20 billion per 

year in wasted fuel and lost time. We need more options. 

High-speed rail has the ability to speed transportation, lower 

stress, reduce fuel costs, contribute less wear and tear on highVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:55 Nov 26, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\5-28-1~1\81259.TXT JEAN
26 

ways, thus reducing the cost of highway maintenance, less traffic 

accidents and deaths, plus improving air quality. 

In conclusion, we who have accepted positions of leadership in 

our valley, cannot turn our backs on those 15 percent of our neighbors who are standing in a very long unemployment line scraping 

to keep food on the table and a roof over their head. We have been 

given the rare opportunity to put in place a project that will create 

jobs for thousands of our friends, our neighbors, our small businesses, and our disabled veterans who need them so desperately. 

Thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of investment right here in 

one of America’s neediest regions. How can we as conscientious decisionmakers do anything but work towards making that possibility 

a reality? 

In my 25 years as a citizen of this valley, I have never seen such 

a tremendous opportunity. This usually comes once in a lifetime, 

and it would be a shame if we do not make it work. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Let me stop those in attendance now. We are not 

going to permit signs, cheering on either side. We are going to keep 

this a very orderly hearing so that we can actually get down to the 

facts. 

And let me start with that line of questioning. My goal of this 

hearing is twofold. First of all, I think the valley residents have a 

right to know what farms this is going to affect, how businesses 

will be disrupted, what the timeline is for construction. Basically, 

property rights and property owners should know what to expect 

in the future, whether they are planning for harvest or planting or 

getting their goods to market, as well as the businesses in this initial operating segment, initial construction segment. The businesses should know whether they have the opportunity to expand 

or are they going to have to relocate? Should they shut down their 

doors? 

And then secondly, overall Prop 1A, what was committed to the 

voters, where we are at on each of those different things that I 

brought up in my initial testimony. 

So, Mr. Richard, I would ask you to start this morning. If you 

can just give us an update on where this project was when you took 

over the position, where it is now, just a brief update, especially 

as it pertains to that timeline. 

Mr. RICHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, with respect to the timeline for the project, the essential thing that we had 

to get through last year was the legislature’s authorization for us 

to spend both bond money as well as the legislature actually had 

to appropriate our expenditure of the Federal money. So that was 

really the pressure point where all these questions came before 

them. 

I do want to point out on your second topic, the Prop 1A compliance, that just prior to that legislative vote, two members of the 

State Senate, then Senator Joseph Simitian and current Senator 

Mark DeSaulnier, asked the State legislative counsel to review this 

new business plan approach that has the blended system that we 

talked about to determine whether or not it complied with Prop 1A. 

27 

And we do have that letter from leg counsel that basically said, 

yes, particularly the valley segment, because they went back and 

they looked at Prop 1A, and they said it does talk about usable segments. It does talk about being able to build things in phases. 

In fact, I went back and looked at the 2008 business plan, which 

was 3 years before I got here, and they actually in that plan laid 

out how the trains would go slower in the urban areas and faster 

in the middle. So a lot of these things were raised by the legislature prior to their actually issuing the vote in favor of the project. 

Fundamentally, the reason we believe this complies with Prop 1A 

is that we have never lost sight, and will not lose sight, of the ultimate vision here. What we are doing is we are building things in 

pieces, in stair steps. It is not unlike if you were looking at a longterm plan to build an interstate highway, you start with some segments. At some places, you go down to two lanes or maybe even 

into the town. But over time, those segments are filled in. 

And we are building this out in lateral segments, and then we 

are also bringing up the level of service to full high-speed rail service. Our plan is to meet those criteria. I do not disagree with Congressman Valadao that it is a little unusual to put engineering 

standards in a piece of legislation, but the fact of the matter is, 

they are there, and they are the law. And our plan is that we will 

get people from L.A. to San Francisco in the requisite timeframes 

and at the requisite speeds. And it will be a fully electrified system. 

So we think that it is really a question of as long as we are moving towards this, the leg counsel felt that this is in compliance with 

Proposition 1A. And I can go into further detail on that. With respect—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Let me just stop you real quickly. 

Mr. RICHARD. Sure. 

Mr. DENHAM. The letter you are referring to, it does say that it 

is not clear. The overall San Francisco-Los Angeles segment, which 

would incorporate the blended segment compliance with the bond 

act is not clear. 

As we are moving forward, I want to make sure that the blended 

approach would also go north into my district to connect with ACE 

train, which is not part of this current plan, nor is it clear whether 

that would comply with Prop 1A. 

Mr. RICHARD. Mr. Chairman, well, first of all, I was referring to 

this on page 21 of 22. The construction of the initial 130-mile segment in the Central Valley complies with the bond act requirement 

to commence construction with the usable segment. It goes on from 

there. 

Now, you are right that there are portions of it where the bigger 

question were at the ends where we are doing the blended service. 

And there, as I read their letter, it is mainly saying we do not 

know because the Authority has told us that they will meet these 

criteria, they have got to meet them. And so they have to rely on 

our engineering judgment at this point. But with respect to the 

construction of the Central Valley portion, there did not seem to be 

any question, at least in my reading of the letter. 

Now, in terms of your question of where we are starting, the 

project through the Central Valley is about 130 miles from here in 

Madera down to north of Bakersfield. For environmental clearance 

28 

purposes, we broke that into two segments: a Merced to Fresno environmental review and Fresno to Bakersfield. We have completed 

the Merced to Fresno review, and with the settlement of the litigation, there are no more questions about that segment. And so the 

plan is to start here, we believe, this summer, building that line 

from about Madera Acres, I think it is, down into Fresno. Mr. 

Chairman, we have provided you with specific parcel information 

along that. 

For the segment from Fresno to Bakersfield, we are not able to 

do that at this point because we are still in environmental review. 

We have an alignment—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Richard, let me stop you there—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Because I am out of time, and we are 

going to try to stick to the 5-minute questioning. But on that specific topic, just to be clear on this initial operating segment, Merced 

to Fresno, what you applied to the SDB for is only 29 miles of that 

segment, correct? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir, because that is the only part we have got 

environmental clearance for now. The rest of the clearance should 

come in the fall. In the valley portion for the Fresno to Bakersfield 

phase, we will complete the environmental work in the fall. And 

then our sixth construction packages will cover that entire 130-mile 

segment. 

Mr. DENHAM. And have you identified the route for the first operating segment? 

Mr. RICHARD. For the first segment, that 29-mile segment, that 

route is identified, and I believe we have given the parcel information to you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. Costa? 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Louis Thompson, 

thank you for your thoughtful comments with regards to the GAO 

report. I suspect you have been a little bit modest here, but I am 

looking at your biography. You have been involved in major construction projects throughout your career, both in the private sector 

and the public sector with the Federal Railroad Administration and 

the Department of Transportation from 1978 to 1986, and the 

World Bank from 1986 to 2003. So let us stipulate for the record 

that you have worked on a lot of infrastructure projects. And clearly your testimony and your peer review effort, I think, reflects that. 

You talked in your testimony about concerns on how the project 

will be funded and a dedicated source of funding for the project, 

which I and others are striving to achieve. But I am wondering in 

terms of a comparative analysis, for example, I have been working 

on the improvement of 99 from Bakersfield to Sacramento for my 

time in the State legislature, and now in Washington. And we have 

phases on Highway 99 for improvement, but we do not have a 

guaranteed source of funding. There are funds that are dedicated 

for these corridors, but it is not guaranteed. And so we have to 

build it in phases as money becomes available. 

198 in Supervisor Verboon’s Kings County I have been working 

on for 14 years with first Senator Chuck Poochigian from Visalia 

to 99, and then from 99 to Hanford. I wish it had not taken so long. 

29 

I had a very close cousin who was injured, like a lot of other people, in an accident in 1964 during one of those foggy January days. 

But that project stopped and started three times, and then went up 

on the shelf because of insufficient funding. 

I am wondering, Mr. Thompson, with your expertise, how those 

transportation corridor projects in terms of a guaranteed source of 

funding is different than this project or the I–5 where we built it 

in phases. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, the interstate highway program, as you 

know, did have a guarantee, or at least, a hypothecated source of 

funding. 

Mr. COSTA. Which is oversubscribed. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Which was oversubscribed. 

Mr. COSTA. Still is oversubscribed. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The point is that the people who started out with 

the map of the highway system had a reliable source of money that 

they knew over a period of years would fund what they were going 

to do. 

It is extremely difficult to plan and manage the construction of 

a very large project like this if you do not know whether the money 

you are going to have each year is what you plan to have. When 

I built the Northeast Corridor project, we depended each year on 

an appropriation from the Congress, and we did not know each 

year what the appropriation was going to be. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, as you know, because of my time here, the fact 

is that we are trying to get a stable source of funding for high 

speed for the Northeast Corridor and for other corridors around the 

country. That is part of the debate in the new transportation. And 

I concur that that is a goal that we should obtain for all of these 

projects. But the fact is we plan projects in America, whether they 

be transportation projects or other projects that are major infrastructure, and we do not always have the money upfront. Would 

you agree with that point? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Of course. We do not always have the money upfront. Our point was twofold. One is the money does not exist, and 

so it will have to be sought from one source or the other. And the 

second is that when you are trying to plan and manage a project 

of this magnitude, it certainly is better if the money is available 

upfront and you can rely on it. You can do it otherwise. There is 

no question about that. 

Mr. COSTA. Yeah, but, I mean, I am trying to think of any project 

that I have been involved with for almost 30 years where the 

money was upfront. I mean, if that was whether you went forward 

or did not go forward—I mean, we are trying to fix the Delta right 

now. It is a $14 billion price tag. We have identified sources of 

money, but the money is not upfront. 

On the Wye project, Mr. Richard, Mr. Upton talked about the 

frustrations he had with the so-called Wye, and we have heard 

some of the comments. Can you describe how you, working with the 

property owners between Chowchilla or between Merced and 

Madera and Merced on the Wye? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, Congressman. First of all, to do that, I just 

want to indicate I am joined here by our CEO, Jeff Morales. Mr. 

Morales had the personal leadership to address those questions, 

30 

and I am very happy that he has done an excellent job working not 

only with Mr. Upton, but also with the Madera and Merced Farm 

Bureaus. 

What he has done is come to us and suggested that certain potential problematic alignments be taken out. And because we are 

still in the environmental process, I cannot say what the ultimate 

outcome will be. We are now very fully informed at the board level 

that there are certain things that work and certain things that do 

not. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Richard. 

Mr. Valadao? 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seems a lot of the concern is getting San Francisco and L.A. connected in a quick manner. I want to ask if, did the Authority take into consideration the 

cost of disruption associated with relocating infrastructure and 

splitting farm land in communities when it decided on the I–5 corridor, decided to rule out the I–5 corridor? And what studies do you 

have to support that decision? 

Mr. RICHARD. Congressman Valadao, that decision was made before I came to the High-Speed Rail Authority. 

Mr. VALADAO. 1996 is when it was made. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. My understanding is it goes back that far. 

The bond act also specifies that we would be connecting the cities 

through the valley. I get asked this question a lot. I have been 

asked this question repeatedly in Kings County, which is where I 

would say we are having the most difficulty right now with alignment choices, precisely, I will say because Kings County, among all 

the counties in the valley, has done probably the best job in preserving agricultural land. And so that makes it even more challenging to work there. 

But having said that, I am asked about this a lot. I think we 

have provided the study that was originally—— 

Mr. VALADAO. You provided the study that shows—— 

Mr. RICHARD. I believe we have, but if I could, Congressman, I 

will follow up for the record on that and make sure that we have. 

Mr. VALADAO. I appreciate that. And then the question also has 

to be asked, why did the Authority reject the offer from the French 

high-speed rail company, and supposedly one of the best in the 

world, to build a high-speed rail on the I–5 and assume all the 

risk? And where is the analysis justification and finding to reject 

that offer? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, that also preceded my time, Congressman, 

but I can give you a very simple answer to it, which is that they, 

as I understand it, came in and proposed to take over the program. 

They did not bring a checkbook. And so if—— 

Mr. VALADAO. Neither is our side either. 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, no, but I am just saying. 

Mr. VALADAO. There is no funding source either side of the aisle. 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, but I am just saying that there is also Virgin 

Rail, there is Japan Rail East, there are numerous operators 

around the world who would like a shot at this. And just handing 

it to one company with an unsolicited proposal with no checkbook, 

I think, would not have been in the public interest. 

31 

Mr. VALADAO. Well, and then with the blended approach, when 

I was in Sacramento, that vote came down, and the two members 

you specifically mentioned earlier that had concerns with it did end 

up voting against the project. And I think Joe Simitian actually did 

a wonderful job on the floor if anybody has a chance to listen to 

his speech, because he has always been a supporter. But he voted 

against the project when I was there. 

But the blended approach was brought in and brought to the 

table, so it would, in my opinion, buy off some off some of the votes 

in the larger areas with more votes—L.A. and San Francisco. But 

that blended approach was brought in to save money and to use 

existing resources. 

In the Central Valley, you are building a track alignment literally in some portions right next to others, a couple of miles away 

from an existing corridor. But from Bakersfield to L.A., there is absolutely nothing. Why not the same type of thought process and 

planning brought in for that portion of it, and why not enclose off 

a portion of the track or a portion of the area or the State that has 

absolutely nothing there? Why not the same blended approach? 

Why are we not granted the same luxury? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, I think the answer to that question is that 

in the urban areas, the trains are never going to go 200 miles an 

hour. As I said, even looking back to the 2008 business plan where 

they had a fully dedicated rail line the entire way, they showed 

trains going 100 to 150 miles an hour in the urban areas. It is just 

the topography there. And in order to meet the standards, which, 

as you pointed out, were put in the law, the part where it is 

straighter and flatter is where the trains go faster. 

One of our problems in your community in Kings County is just 

that the BNSF line down there makes a right turn or a left turn 

heading south to the east. Trains going even 100 miles an hour 

cannot navigate that. So it puts out in a difficult situation. 

But I would say that the blended approach is consistent with 

what has been done around the world as you come into urban 

areas, and in the open parts of the State in between, it is a dedicated rack at high speed. 

Mr. VALADAO. Speaking of Union Pacific and Burlington Northern, how is your relationship with them, and have they signed off 

on the project? I have read a few letters from them that sounds like 

they are not very supportive or excited about the openness of the 

agency. 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, I think our relationships with both of those 

railroads, which are crucially important, are very good. And I have 

personally, as has Mr. Morales, been involved in high-level discussions all the way up to the top of UP and also with BNSF. 

I think we are close to an agreement with them. The main issues 

that they have concerns with are indemnifications, which we have 

promised them we are going to provide, and it is in our budget to 

do so. They are also concerned about their operational flexibility 

and the ability to reach customers and not be blocked out by the 

high-speed rail line. We have had extensive conversations with 

them about that. 

BNSF told us they were a little surprised and chagrined by the 

way their letter was characterized in the press. I think our relaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:55 Nov 26, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\5-28-1~1\81259.TXT JEAN
32 

tions with them are good, and I think that the agreements are 

pending. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Richard, I am going to ask a number of questions very, very quickly, if you could give me short answers. We are spending a lot of time with you, and we have a number of other panelists here. 

But let me, on the land acquisition piece, first of all, have you 

acquired any land yet? 

Mr. RICHARD. We are in the process. I am going to ask, if I could, 

Mr. Chairman, maybe during a break in questions, I will get a note 

from Mr. Morales as to where we are. We are in that process where 

are working with people right now. We may have concluded some 

of the agreements. I am not completely sure. I will find out for you 

in just a moment. 

Mr. DENHAM. And still on track to break ground this summer? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir, with the understanding that the Surface 

Transportation Board needs to render a judgment so that we can 

go forward. But if they do it in the timeframe that they have used 

in the past, we would be on track to break ground this summer. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you have a committed route, and you are buying 

property. So you are somewhere in the process of buying property 

along that committed route. 

Mr. RICHARD. Right. For the first 29-mile piece that has been environmentally cleared, our agents are out talking with land owners 

right now and engaging them in the conversations. And our hope 

is to buy all of this and to avoid eminent domain, if it at all possible. 

Mr. DENHAM. And you have sent out letters along the 29 miles? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you sent letters out beyond the 29 miles? 

Mr. RICHARD. No, because beyond 29 miles, we are not allowed 

by law to do that until we clear the environmental process, which 

will be this fall. 

Mr. DENHAM. And if you cannot come to an agreement with landowners, you are prepared to do it by eminent domain, or what is 

that process? 

Mr. RICHARD. We will follow the law. That process, as I understand—I am not a practicing lawyer—but is that there is a process 

where if there is no agreement, we go to to court to get an order 

for the take, and then people argue about the price. And I think 

it is fairly standard with what happens in other situations, whether it is highways or other types of developments. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Upton, it sounds like the routing 

of the proposed high-speed rail line through your area has been 

confusing, at least. You have gone through several different renditions of what this route could be. How would you describe your 

current relationship with the High-Speed Rail Authority after those 

objections? 

Mr. UPTON. Our current relationship is it is the best it has ever 

been, OK? Early on, the first couple of years, we caught them lying 

to us several times, and that does not bode well for a relationship. 

So with the addition of the new people and the Merced to San Jose 

group and Ms. Diana Gomez, it has been a more refreshing apVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:55 Nov 26, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\5-28-1~1\81259.TXT JEAN
33 

proach with it. But the bottom line is at the end of the day, we 

have to see routes that are compatible with our existing infrastructure and supported by the community. 

Mr. DENHAM. And as you have testified, they are listening much 

better than they ever have been before. Do you have current suggestions for them on how we move forward? With other landowners 

as well. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, I think the process of having the open houses 

and having the comment cards and that kind of thing is good if it 

works. One of the frustrating things about this is I cannot tell you 

how many comment cards and how many open houses, how many 

times we have done this. So it is a little bit frustrating when they 

would come back and say, well, we want to know what you think 

and how you feel about it. They already know that, OK? So maybe 

they just do not like what they are hearing. 

But it seems like this group has taken a more responsible approach with a little bit of integrity. And I hope I am not speaking 

out of turn here, but I hope that it results in some actual routes 

that reflect the community’s wishes and is compatible with our infrastructure. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And, Mr. Richard, you have provided 

the committee with the parcel numbers along that initial segment. 

Would you also be willing, as Mr. Upton and other landowners, before reaching into eminent domain, adjusting parcel lines if you 

have the ability to adjust which parcels may make slight changes 

along the same route? 

Mr. RICHARD. I am going to need to check with our folks about 

that. I would like to be as flexible as we can be. We have to stay 

within the bounds of the State and Federal environmental process. 

There may be some amount of flexibility. If we deviate from that 

too much, I think we run into problems. 

But let me make this commitment to you, Mr. Chairman. We are 

going to do everything we can to work with landowners in a positive, productive way. There may be some people who simply do not 

want to do it. That is fine. But I know that you know our vice 

chairman, Tom Richards. He is from the valley, a very decent man. 

He and I have talked about this, how we want to approach people 

to make sure that they are fairly compensated for any land that 

we offer. 

We will continue to work with your office on this and keep you 

apprised of what we are doing with these landowners, because I 

know that you have a very strong interest in this. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thompson, let me 

just indicate that your earlier comment about part of the purpose 

of the peer review is to strengthen the project is to be commended. 

And that continued advice will be much appreciated. 

Mr. Smith, you talked about the economic impacts to our valley 

and to our State with this major infrastructure project. There has 

been a lot of talk about different jobs numbers that will be created 

with the first 138 miles in the two phases. Is 20,000 jobs per every 

billion dollars spent, do you think that is accurate? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I am not an expertise in that area. Mr. Thompson might have some input in that because he and I talked about 

34 

that issue just a little bit before the hearing started. But from all 

indications, whether it is 20, whether it is 19, whether you do it 

in hours or jobs, the impact is going to be enormous into our valley. 

Mr. COSTA. You talked about your time here in the valley 20 plus 

years, and you and I have interacted over most of that time, I believe. One of the constant complaints, I think, that we get about 

living here in our valley, and I am third generation, is that we oftentimes when it comes to investing in major infrastructure 

projects are funding formulas for transportation or funding formulas for schools, go down the list, that we get short-changed from 

the Bay area and southern California. 

Now all of a sudden, we have the opportunity to be the key segment in beginning this enormous infrastructure project. That is 

kind of different, is it not? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think it is a game changer. I mean, I really 

do believe that going forward in the next 20 years, if this project 

continues on and is done, and you can argue about how it is done 

and you can nibble around the edges about whether it is wrong, 

right, or indifferent. But if the project is successful, I think it is 

going to completely change the complexion of the Central Valley. 

As the urban areas become more congested, as the cost of living 

in those areas for businesses as well as for residents continue to 

sort of strangle those people on the coast and those larger cities, 

they are going to be looking for places to move to, their businesses 

as well as their homes. And they are going to have to look at areas 

like the Central Valley. And having a great efficient transportation 

structure, I think, is paramount to make that happen. 

Mr. COSTA. An interconnected transportation structure. 

Mr. Richard, some of the most vocal critics, as you know, have 

been landowners and farmers. And I have been very concerned 

about that in every conversation you and I have ever had since you 

took on this responsibility. It comes from my concerns about maintaining our valley’s number one economy and doing what we continue to do best. 

Can you tell me what specific steps you and board members and 

your staff have taken to try to really sit down in the affect corridor 

routes to try to meet with farmers and landowners? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, Congressman, I am a person who lives in the 

Bay area. Over the last 18 months, I have personally spent quite 

a bit of time in the valley in, I think, all the counties up and down 

the alignment. We have met with individual landowners. We have 

also met with representatives of agricultural growing operations. 

And, you know, I had a chance to listen to them. As I like to say, 

I have stood in Sam Gaspar’s milking barn in Hanford. I have been 

on people’s dirt where they are growing organic cherries and almonds, pistachios and so forth. And so I have seen some of this in 

ways that I, frankly, have never understood it before as a northern 

Californian. And I think it is critical for us to preserve the valley 

and the agricultural resources. 

We have made alignment changes as we were looking at the 

Merced to Fresno Corridor that protected a major food processor 

there. We are currently in discussions in the Wasco-Shafter area 

with large growers there. It is not like they particularly want to 

wake up with high-speed rail coming through, but they have got 

35 

one alignment that works for them and one alignment that very 

definitely does not. We are working with them to try to work on 

those issues. Kings County, we will be having another conversation 

next week with Kings County leadership. 

We have spent a lot of time—myself, Mr. Morales, Ms. Gomez, 

and others—certainly trying to do a better job of reaching out to 

the agricultural sector and listening to them. And we are making 

alignment changes as a result to try to minimize the impact on agriculture. 

I also want to say that the settlement that we entered into with 

Ms. Raudabaugh’s organization, I think, is going to form a great 

template for agricultural protection going forward, particularly 

with the unique problem of going across farms and orchards at an 

angle and leaving remainder properties that would otherwise 

be—— 

Mr. COSTA. Stranded properties in terms of diagonal corridor. 

Mr. RICHARD. Right. And so the agreement that she hammered 

out that we have agreed to, I think, is going to be much better for 

people in those situations. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Valadao? 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Verboon, when was the 

last time you met with the High-Speed Rail Authority? Have you 

reached out, and are you meeting with them any time soon? 

Mr. VERBOON. The last official meeting we had with the HighSpeed Rail Authority was June 10th, 2011, and we left them with 

an idea to speed up the dairy permitting process. And we have not 

heard from them since. They have been vacant in our area for some 

time. 

We have left every Tuesday open since that day and have not 

heard from them until about 10 days ago, got a call from Diana 

Gomez, asked to meet. And we set up a coordinating meeting in 

our chambers on June 4th. So they have been absent for 11 

months. 

Mr. VALADAO. So June 4th, that is next week, right? 

Mr. VERBOON. Yeah. 

Mr. VALADAO. All right. And I apologize if I butcher your name. 

I think Anja is probably better. 

Ms. RAUDABAUGH. That is fine. You can say that. 

Mr. VALADAO. I understand some of your members are concerned 

about the Authority’s use of eminent domain. How will this affect 

your Farm Bureau members, and how long does the litigation process take, if it comes to that? 

Ms. RAUDABAUGH. Well, I understand we have also deployed an 

eminent domain attorney. But I understand that standard eminent 

domain is at least a delay of 4 months. And unfortunately or fortunately for the condemnee, it actually works out really well if you 

are a victim of eminent domain to file and essentially become a 

plaintiff in an eminent domain case. So it almost removes the pro 

or anti project position and makes it more of a financial decision. 

And that is actually something that, for what it is worth, we 

have accepted in Madera County. We are very concerned, though, 

that the ultimate funding that has been estimated for project acquisition or parcel acquisition is actually about four or five times 

36 

more, which is usually what is yielded out of an eminent domain 

case. 

So again, it is a one-way ticket. Not to use too much of a railroad 

pun, but when you buy ag land for this purpose, you cannot go 

back. So we are really worried that even the offers are going to 

damage our operations to such a point that the ultimate endowment accounts cannot be funded with the proper level of a fair market starting price before you go into evaluation hearing. 

Does that make sense? 

Mr. VALADAO. Yeah. Have any of your members actually been in 

conversations with the High-Speed Rail Authority about land acquisition? 

Ms. RAUDABAUGH. Oh, yes. 

Mr. VALADAO. And are they starting to see some prices? 

Ms. RAUDABAUGH. No prices yet. In fact, that is something that 

Chairman Richard alluded to. There have been several appraisals 

that I know of. I know there has been a debate about property access throughout this process, which, again, I understand. But some 

of the meat and potatoes of the appraisal process is actually just 

starting to formulate because, again, the lawsuit was just settled 

a month ago. 

Mr. VALADAO. And have you seen an actual finalized alignment? 

Do the farmers know this is going through my property, exactly 

where it is going, and how it is going to affect them? 

Ms. RAUDABAUGH. Generally from Avenue 17, which is just to the 

north of the city of Madera, to the San Joaquin River, yes. 

Mr. VALADAO. OK. 

Ms. RAUDABAUGH. Within 200 feet or so. 

Mr. VALADAO. Within 200 feet? And what about Kings County, 

Mr. Verboon? Sorry. 

Mr. VERBOON. We do not have an alignment as of yet. We have 

two proposed alignments, but there is no definite alignment in our 

county. But we kind of have an idea. There are some markings on 

the roads, but for the reason being that the High-Speed Rail Authority has been absent from our county, it is hard to know exactly 

where it is at. 

We had a meeting about a month ago with two engineers and 

Diana Gomez, and they had brought a map with a west side alternative. And we asked them why they chose the west side over the 

east side, and they said, well, it affected less dairies. It only affected one dairy. And I pointed out five dairies on one page. And 

I gave them this information, and neither one decided to pick up 

a pen or a notepad and write down the information that I was giving them. So I felt they were incompetent at that time when you 

give them information they could use and they chose not to. 

Mr. VALADAO. All right, thank you. Mr. Richard, page 4 of your 

STB filing states that phase one is to be constructed in stages dependent upon funding availability. Would you build the first section from Fresno to Bakersfield if you knew there was never going 

to be any additional funding? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, I do not—— 

Mr. VALADAO. It is a yes or no question. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. Yes, we would. 

Mr. VALADAO. OK. 

37 

Mr. RICHARD. And I can explain that if you would like, but the 

answer is yes. 

Mr. VALADAO. Really, really quickly because I am running out of 

time here. 

Mr. RICHARD. The reason is because we do believe there will be 

funding down the road, and secondly, because we believe what we 

are building will have—— 

Mr. VALADAO. Well then, your answer—I asked if you believe 

there is never going to be. So you do believe—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Right. The answer to your question is, yes, sir. 

Mr. VALADAO. OK. So if never connected to anything else, do you 

still consider this good transportation policy? I mean, because I 

personally do not believe it is actually going to get any more 

money. 

Mr. RICHARD. But, Congressman, it is still connected to something else, and that is the point. And that is why we do believe 

that it is a worthwhile first step. 

Mr. VALADAO. There is still no money to fund anything connecting the southern tip of this with any of the population south 

of Bakersfield—Palmdale, L.A., nothing. 

Mr. RICHARD. Very quickly, even if that were true, it is still going 

to be connected to the Amtrak system here, which will have value. 

Mr. VALADAO. There is Amtrak between L.A. and Bakersfield. 

There is no connecting rail. They ride a bus. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. I would like to answer that question. I understand your time has expired, but I will follow the lead. 

Mr. DENHAM. Actually let me start with that same line. I have 

got a few questions that are similar, but short answers. So you do 

plan on operating the trains over the initial construction segment 

of Fresno to Bakersfield. 

Mr. RICHARD. We plan to operate trains. They will not be the full 

high-speed rail trains. 

Mr. DENHAM. They will not be electrified. 

Mr. RICHARD. Not at the beginning, no. 

Mr. DENHAM. And so initially, it will be Amtrak. Amtrak would 

connect with the north part of the segment, so basically where Amtrak currently operates, it would connect in with this line at some 

point in Merced? 

Mr. RICHARD. Near Madera I think. That is maybe Merced. We 

come within 102 feet of the Amtrak alignment. And basically what 

that would do is it would knock at least an hour, perhaps an hour 

15 minutes, off the transvalley trip right now on the San Joaquin. 

Mr. DENHAM. So where ACE train runs over to Amtrak. 

Mr. RICHARD. Right. 

Mr. DENHAM. In the short term, at least you would be able to get 

from San Francisco to Bakersfield. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. And, Mr. Chairman, the key here is that, as 

you know, when freight railroads and passenger rail operate on the 

same line, Federal law limits that speed to 79 miles an hour. But 

when there is a dedicated line, the trains can go as fast as they 

can go. And so that means that once we build our track, even if 

it is not electrified, the existing Amtrak service will be substantially improved because even their existing locomotives could probably hit 120 or something like that. I would look at Lou Thompson. 

38 

But it will enable, at the very first step, better trips up and down 

the valley on the Amtrak line. And then we have the next step line 

to get to Palmdale. 

Mr. DENHAM. So just to be clear, from Madera to Bakersfield 

would be that initial segment, which is going to be dedicated track 

for Amtrak specific, which would at least be able to get higher 

speeds from Madera to Bakersfield at a $6 billion cost. 

Mr. RICHARD. Precisely correct. That is right. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Thompson, I want to talk a little 

bit about the peer reviews, the group’s last review of the 2012 that 

raised concerns with cost ridership. Ridership is what this whole 

thing is predicated on. Obviously we are not going to have any private investor if they cannot substantiate these ridership numbers. 

Can you explain the concerns that you have over ridership? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, there were a number of concerns expressed 

about the ridership demand forecasting. The main one that we expressed was not that it was either right or wrong, but that people 

should understand that when you are making a forecast for what 

we called the green field project as opposed to a brown field project, 

you inherently have a lot more range of—— 

Mr. COSTA. For the audience, you might want to explain the distinction between brown and green. 

Mr. THOMPSON. OK. A green field is a brand new project where 

no service exists now, and we have nothing on which to base the 

demand forecast except questions that you ask people what would 

you do if there were a service. Almost every high-speed rail project 

in the world has been a brown field project in which there was an 

existing service, and all you were doing was improving it. It is a 

very different forecasting situation. And the confidence that you 

have in the results is much greater when all you are doing is improving an existing service rather than building something entirely 

new. 

Mr. DENHAM. The primary ridership numbers are predicated 

upon pulling people from air travel to train travel, correct? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Actually they are more predicated on pulling 

people from the highway. Far more of the ridership comes from the 

highway than comes from the air. 

Mr. DENHAM. So then the ridership numbers that you are looking 

at would be the highway travel that is currently up and down 

Highway 99 in the valley? 

Mr. THOMPSON. No. Some relatively small portion of that travel. 

The imbalance between highway riders and train riders is very 

great, and all you take is a percentage of the highway travel, and 

that is what the railway ridership would be made of predominantly. Of course it is significant for airways as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. So how do your ridership numbers differ from what 

the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s numbers are projecting? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I am not sure they differ. What they have 

done as they have refined their models is, generally speaking, reduced their demand forecast. So as we stand today, the demand 

forecasts are lower than they have been in the past. 

But we never said they were right or wrong. What we said was 

be aware that there is a fairly wide range of outcome from these, 

and just because it says 28 does not mean it cannot be 14 or 42. 

39 

Mr. DENHAM. We do not have any private investors here to testify today, but I will tell you I have talked to some of the largest 

rail companies throughout the world, as well as some of the national providers of trains. None have seen anything that would encourage them to invest at this point. What should give us confidence in these ridership numbers that we will have a private investor in the future? 

Mr. THOMPSON. First of all, actual experience. If they build the 

IOS and they actually will have ridership, and you can see that 

does give them confidence. But the second thing is that the role of 

the private sector in this project and, in fact, in most high-speed 

rail projects, has not been to pay back the investment in the infrastructure. It has been to provide the rolling stock and to operate 

the system, and to use the operating revenues from that to cover 

their costs and, in some cases, generate a contribution to infrastructure. The role of the private sector will be wholly dependent 

on how much of the infrastructure you want them to pay back. 

Mr. DENHAM. And my time has expired. Let me just conclude with, of the $68.4 billion that is being proposed, $55 billion of that, 

if the Federal Government and State government were to be able 

to come up with that $55 billion, which I think is a huge if at this 

point, but if it were, are the ridership numbers able to substantiate 

a $13 billion investment from private investors? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe that the ridership numbers will be sufficient to cover the cost of the rolling stock and cover the operating 

costs of the system, including the maintenance. I think what is in 

question is how much of a contribution above that can be made to 

the infrastructure. And I really cannot give you a number on that. 

Mr. DENHAM. But the investment that you are talking about is 

not the $13 billion that is currently being proposed. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That will wholly be dependent on numbers that 

we will not know for years. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Richard, I would ask you to follow up on that 

as I come back around for this last line of questioning. 

Mr. Costa? 

Mr. COSTA. Yeah, thank you very much. Mr. Thompson, I think 

in your comments, it quite clearly points out the challenges we 

face, and that is that unlike in Europe and Asia where they have 

made a commitment to it over the last 40 years, there is no book 

that has been written on how you build high-speed rail in America. 

We have had a number of different efforts that have taken place 

with the Northeast Corridor. We have had other proposals that 

have been out there. But really we are writing that book today 

here in California, I would submit. 

And so, there are a lot of important questions that have yet to 

be answered. But if we decide, like we have decided in America for 

238 years in our Nation’s history, that we are going to do something, we make a commitment, we put America’s ingenuity to that 

using the best of our private sector as well as the private sector 

public partnership, we have been enormously successful for transportation projects, for water projects. 

And I think the peer review area is, I mean, where these pieces 

fit into place. It is hard, I think, to take the rhetorical question 

that was just asked to talk about investors from Europe or Japan 

40 

or anywhere else, including here in the United States, if, in fact, 

Congress is still debating about taking money away from the 

project. I mean, that does not leave a lot of confidence for potential 

investors. So, I think that we have to be mindful of that. I do not 

know if you care to comment. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I have absolutely no doubt that we can 

build this system if we want to. There is no question about that. 

I also have no doubt that there are public benefits from this system 

that you can never capture from the private sector—pollution, safety, congestion, a number of things. The reasons why the European 

countries built their systems were not because they wanted to 

make money. They built them because they had public benefits as 

well as the private benefits to be—— 

Mr. COSTA. Plus the public-private partnership. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. And the trick is to get the partners 

in the right roles and to get the risks in the right place so that 

each of them—— 

Mr. COSTA. And that is why your peer review is so important as 

we try to make sure we get this right. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is why we have spent a lot of time on the business model issue, for example, because that will be the name of the 

game in the future. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. And to that point, Mr. Verboon, you commented upon whether or not Prop 1A is being appropriately followed, and Mr. Richards commented upon his view that it is. And 

I guess we will have a judge that will opine on this later or soon 

as to whether or not Prop A is being followed. 

But let me give you a nonlawyer’s perspective because I am just 

a farm kid from Kearney Park. I was the original author of Prop 

1A, and I could tell you that it follows the intent, having worked 

on this effort for almost 20 years in the 1990s when we put together the first preliminary proposal to see whether or not highspeed rail, given the same applications of other parts of the world, 

could work here, and then coming up with creating the Authority. 

And I was very upset that the Authority did not work out as I had 

initially hoped. I think it has gotten better, as I said, in the last 

12 months. 

But your frustrations are valid. But I will tell you it was always 

intended to be an interconnected, intermodal, blended transportation system. It is the only way it works. It is the way it has 

worked in Europe. It is the way it has worked in Asia. You got to 

connect the existing high-speed state-of-the-art. These will be 220- 

mile-an-hour trains in corridors to the slower trains. That is what 

they do in Europe. That is what they do in Asia. 

You have got to connect it so you have access to the airports. 

That is the interconnectivity, so that you can go from point A to 

point B to point C, whether it is for business or for travel purposes, 

with a minimum amount of difficulty. 

And so, lawyers, I guess, will opine. We had leg counsel opine 

last year. We will see what the judge determines earlier this year. 

But I think on that point as a nonlawyer, at least as the person 

that created the initial legislation, in my opinion, it complies. And 

we can agree to disagree because that is the wonderful part about 

41 

this country. That is not a question. That is not a question. I am 

sorry. 

Mr. Richard, you know, there is a lot of frustration here, and I 

think you have done your best to try to respond to a lot of aspects 

of it. In your written testimony, you talk about the new business 

plan envisioned to modernize the entire State’s transportation system. And it is complicated because part of the rail system carries 

both passengers and freights. What is the largest rail passenger 

system in the Nation in terms of ridership? What is the largest 

commitment that we have in the Nation in terms of investment for 

passenger ridership? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, that would be Amtrak. 

Mr. COSTA. And it is in California that we lead the Nation. 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, we have—— 

Mr. COSTA. The second most busiest corridor, the third most 

busiest corridor, and the—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Of the top five busiest Amtrak corridors, the busiest is in the Northeast Corridor, but three of the next four are in 

California: the Capital Corridor, the San Joaquin, and the Los Angeles-San Diego-Lausanne Corridor. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Valadao. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. Mr. Richard, in every country they do 

a cost benefit analysis for individual segments that lead to a complete project. Have you done an independent risk analysis for this 

first construction segment? 

Mr. RICHARD. I want to be careful how I answer this question because I believe we have, but I want to make sure that it is consistent with what you may have in mind. But what I would say, 

Mr. Valadao, is that we have been very clear in looking at building 

this project in segments that we want each segment to have the 

funding before we start, and we want it to have independent utility. 

The biggest risk is the first segment. There is no question about 

it. 

Mr. VALADAO. The GAO states that the Authority did not conduct 

a risk and uncertainty analysis, and that was on page 19 of their 

report. And when you say that this first segment is the riskiest in 

the starting point, it sounds like it is a pretty serious issue that 

we should be doing a risk analysis when so much taxpayer money 

is on the line. 

In a recent court litigation concerning the Merced to Fresno AIR, 

the Authority claimed that amount of estimated cost stated in various master agreements with local agencies totaling $1.5 billion 

were somehow double counted, and that some of these costs were 

actually part of the estimated $1.2 to $1.8 billion cost for constructing high-speed DHST project infrastructure for the 29-mile 

construction package, CP1. Can you explain which of the costs in 

the master agreement task order were double counted? 

Mr. RICHARD. I am sorry, I do not have that information here. 

We will absolutely provide it for the record. 

Mr. VALADAO. OK. Can you confirm the total cost of constructing 

CP1, including all costs associated with the work outlined in the 

42 

various master agreements with local agencies, the cost of ROW 

project acquisition, and the cost of mitigation? 

Mr. RICHARD. The construction package one that the staff is going to bring to the board next is for $985 million. I want to make 

sure in answering that that way that I have included all of the 

costs that you laid out. I will, again, confirm that with the staff, 

and we will follow up on the record. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. What do you mean as the people also 

get for this investment? Do we get a high-speed rail service? Do we 

even get an electrified system? And it looks like we are getting the 

first construction, and earth is getting going. But do we actually 

get an electrified track, or do we have permission, or does the environmental impact report allow us to use diesel Amtrak trains on 

the existing rail, or the new rail that is going to be constructed 

right alongside of the existing? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. 

Mr. VALADAO. It does? Does Kings County lose the Corcoran and 

Hanford station, or are we able to keep those? 

Mr. RICHARD. We do not have any plans to stop Amtrak service— 

it is not ours to stop—between Corcoran, Wasco, and—— 

Mr. VALADAO. So we will continue to have a Wasco station as 

well? 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. We are not closing down the station. 

Mr. VALADAO. What happens when Amtrak moves, because that 

is part of the plan for the first segment is to move the Amtrak 

trains over to the new rail line, and the new rail line does not go 

through or have any plans for stations there. 

Mr. RICHARD. As I have explained numerous times in Kings 

County, we support the continuation of rail service on those smaller stations. 

Mr. VALADAO. So we are going to have two Amtrak trains running literally a couple of miles away from each other up and down. 

Mr. RICHARD. We could have express trains as well as local 

trains. That is very common around the world. But we are not the 

ones in charge of that. What we are saying is we are creating a 

facility that Amtrak can use to improve its service. It does not 

mean we want to orphan these smaller stations. And, in fact, we 

do not, and I have committed to the people in Kings County and 

Kern County that we want to work with them and our State transportation authority to make sure that rail service continues there. 

Mr. VALADAO. All right, thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. This is kind of off the point a little bit, but pertaining to this. We are doing the passenger reauthorization bill. Is 

there anything in the new area with Amtrak that would be involved in the new passenger reauthorization bill? 

Mr. RICHARD. I think we want to work with your office and Amtrak on that. We have a very good relationship with Amtrak. In 

fact, our new chief engineer was the chief engineer of Amtrak. Mr. 

Morales announced an agreement in Washington a few months ago 

with Amtrak to coordinate on the procurement of high-speed train 

vehicles because they are looking at things for the Northeast. You 

know, I think PRIIA gives us a lot of opportunities. 

Mr. DENHAM. We would ask you to work with us. That is obviously a huge goal of this committee is to get the passenger reauVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:55 Nov 26, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\5-28-1~1\81259.TXT JEAN
43 

thorization bill done this fall. And if there is any concerns with 

that, we just want to be upfront in working with you. 

Mr. RICHARD. We appreciate your leadership on that bill, Mr. 

Chairman, and we thank you for that invitation. We will take it 

up. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And I have a couple of just quick followup questions. We do want to finish by noon, but I will allow my 

colleagues, if either have additional questions. We can either submit them for the record to be answered at a later date at the conclusion of this hearing, or we can continue on as you see fit. 

So let me ask my questions, and if you would like to—— 

Mr. COSTA. I will make it easy, Mr. Chairman. At this point, all 

the questions that I have highlighted, I think I have asked. And 

I will submit any further questions for the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And, Mr. Valadao, likewise? 

Mr. VALADAO. I will as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. So just to follow up on Mr. Thompson’s 

point, the $68.4 or $68.5 billion, does that include rolling stock? 

Mr. RICHARD. No, it does not. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Wait a second, excuse me. 

VOICE. It does. 

Mr. RICHARD. It does? 

VOICE. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the $13 billion—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Excuse me. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. That a private investor would pay for 

does include rolling stock as well. 

Mr. RICHARD. Yes. They would put up the rolling stock and collect the—and I am sorry, I misspoke. The project total is the 

project total, which includes rolling stock. So they would put up 

money. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a moment. This approach that 

we have is not like when I was on BART where we had public employees operating the trains, maintaining the trains. Our fundamental approach here is that we make a public investment. The 

private sector comes in and bids for the rights to operate that. 

They will put up the rolling stock. They will collect the fares. They 

will do the operations and maintenance. 

Mr. DENHAM. With no ongoing subsidy. 

Mr. RICHARD. With no ongoing subsidy. That is not only the law, 

but that is also what we think is appropriate, and it is consistent 

with what has happened around the world. We do not see any need 

for an ongoing subsidy. In fact, our hope is that we will be like the 

line in France that just paid back hundreds of millions of euros to 

help pay off some of the existing cost of the capital of the system. 

We cannot promise you that at this point, but that is what we believe will happen. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And of the $13.3 billion or $13.1 billion 

that would be the private investment, what percentage of that is 

rolling stock versus actual asset infrastructure? 

Mr. RICHARD. I do not know the answer to that question. I think 

Mr. Thompson is right. I want to point out for this committee that 

we are refining our models in ways suggested by his group as well 

44 

as by the GAO. And I think the GAO report has become a little 

bit like astrology: everybody gets out of it what they want. 

I am looking at their quote that said, you know, our funding, 

which relies on both public and private sources, faces uncertainty. 

Yes, that is true. The Authority’s plan recognizes the uncertainty 

of the current funding environment so is building the project in 

phases, and has identified an alternative funding source. And they 

said that that is a reasonable approach to doing this. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And just clarifying for the record, I 

have talked to the French. They are investing in rail all over the 

world, and they are not doing it just because they think that is 

great for air quality or environmental quality. They are doing it because they are doing it in places where they can turn a profit for 

France—— 

Mr. RICHARD. Sure. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. And for their company. Let me just 

close. The one thing that we did not touch on today, which is an 

important part of this, you have entered into a contract with Tutor 

Perini, the construction bid on this. We have a number of questions 

pertaining to that bid process that we will submit in writing. 

But the one thing that did come up in chapter 2 of the business 

plan, you explained that the private sector will be retained for design build contracts. And the benefits of doing so are to eliminate 

the risk, especially cost overruns, which are transferred to the private sector. 

Mr. RICHARD. Right. 

Mr. DENHAM. So can you promise us today that because we went 

to a construction package one, the citizens of California will not 

have to pay anything in this initial project because it is on the private investor to have 100 percent of that cost controlled? 

Mr. RICHARD. What I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, is that absolutely using design build will minimize any risk of overruns. I am 

not going to sit here and promise that there will not be because 

there might be something that happens. 

I will tell you that I worked, when I was on BART, with this contractor. They built the BART to San Francisco Airport project. 

They also built the new airport terminal. Both were under design 

builds. Our experience with them under a design build contract 

was that it was completed on time and within our project budget. 

Mr. DENHAM. Are the cost overruns because of change orders or 

are they cost overruns because a private industry did not manage 

the project? 

Mr. RICHARD. Well, in one case we had somebody run over an endangered snake, which shut us down for a couple of weeks. But, 

I mean, generally what happens is because the—yes, I know. 

Mr. DENHAM. We have a lot of ferry shrimp here in the valley. 

Those are hard to see. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RICHARD. I get it. But generally what happens, normally 

what is the normal cause of overruns is that somebody is handed 

a design, and then is able to say, oh, well, this design does not 

work, and they come in and say, now we are hitting you with a 

change order. 

45 

Under a design build contract, they are handed about 30 percent 

of the design. They complete the design and build to their own design. It makes it very hard for them to come in and say the two 

pieces did not fit here when they are the ones having to complete 

the design. 

I agree with Lou Thompson. There are risks in design build contracts. We need to stay on top of those risks. But in general, we 

think it is the best protection that the public has against overruns. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the $983 million that is set aside for construction package one, if there are overruns, is there a contingency? Is 

there a 10-percent contingency? 

Mr. RICHARD. First of all, if there are overruns, they are on the 

contractor, unless there is something that we did. And we do not 

think that that is going to be the case. 

Secondly, in terms of our contingency, what it would probably 

mean is that for the next segment from Fresno down to Bakersfield, we would have to build fewer miles of track. That is the way 

we are sort of handling contingencies here as opposed to setting 

aside a dollar amount. But we feel very good about these numbers. 

GAO felt pretty good about our forecasting methodology. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And the final question, this question 

has come up a lot in our conference. When we go back to Washington, DC, after the August break, we are going to be working on 

appropriations bills, funding bills, as well as what came up last 

year under the transportation bill. If there is a $38 billion shortfall, 

or there is a shortfall of any magnitude that the Federal Government is going to have to come up with money for, the question that 

my colleagues have come back to me and asked for the other 49 

States that will contribute to the State of California, why would 

not the California voters demand that this goes back to the ballot? 

If it has gone from a $33 billion project to a $68 billion or whatever 

the final number may be, at a certain point, do you feel the need 

to go back to voters? 

Mr. RICHARD. I think if you look at Proposition 1A, Mr. Chairman, voters’ protection, I think, as the first line of defense was that 

the proposition by its terms required the legislature to appropriate 

the money. And these questions were before the legislature last 

year. 

I would just say, and I know there are a lot of questions here, 

and I am sure you want a lot of them answered. I would like the 

opportunity to do it. But, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to be 

coming to you in your role on this committee or to your colleagues 

looking for $50 billion of Federal appropriations. 

We are going to build this in pieces. The next piece after the valley is to jump over the Tehachapis to get to Palmdale. It is about 

$10 billion. We have about half that money right now from the 

bonds that are left. We think we can get there. That will be an incredibly useful project and will answer Mr. Valadao’s concerns 

about getting us to the gates of L.A. 

With each step, we will come to you where we are asking for 

Federal support, having looked at the other things that we can do 

to put the dollars together. And we have laid out some of those in 

our testimony. But that is now we feel we can build this in piece 

46 

in a careful way, and it is not going to depend on those levels of 

Federal dollars. 

And I think there is a whole lot of other private sector dollars 

from concessions and other things that we have just started to look 

at. The High-Speed Rail Authority in the past had never looked at 

those things. As I said, in Japan, 30 percent of their revenues come 

from real estate around the stations, the opportunities looking at 

Fresno, Bakersfield, other places, Palmdale. That is why some of 

the mayors there are very excited in Palmdale and Fresno. So we 

think that there are a number of different things. 

We are going to do our job to put as many of those pieces together before we come to you, Mr. Chairman, and ask you for Federal dollars. And when we do, we may look for things in new forms 

that are not just the old grants, earmarked grants, that your Congress has basically moved away from, but areas where we can work 

together to accelerate and focus private sector investment. 

And I know that that is your interest, and, Mr. Chairman, we 

are committed to that, too. We think that there are some things 

that could be done in PRIIA or other places that can get the private sector involved earlier. 

So it is a complex topic. There are risks with this program, but 

there are great benefits. Our job is to manage those risks. We are 

getting lots of advice as to how to do that. We really believe we can 

build this project for the benefit of Californians and not leave people hanging out to dry with something that does not have value. 

And I appreciate you letting me make that statement right at the 

end. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, would you yield on that point? I appreciate all the time and effort, Congressman Denham, that you 

provided in this effort, both when you were in Sacramento and 

now. I would just like to opine that I think the projects that we 

build that we invest in California, or anywhere else in the country, 

will, at certain times, be more popular or less popular. But I think 

it is the legislature’s responsibility not only to determine whether 

or not they want to issue the bonds that the voters approved, but 

also they have, as was stated by Mr. Richards, the approval by the 

Federal funding that we have achieved. 

I am a big supporter of Temperance Flat, a reservoir proposal 

that is up here. I hope that we will have a ballot measure next 

year that will provide funding for Temperance Flat. It is currently 

advertised at $21⁄2 billion. I do not know if that will be the ultimate 

cost. 

I would hate to see a precedent set where we pass a water bond 

measure next year, we commit to build water storage projects, and 

then it becomes unpopular for whatever various reasons. I remember the Dinkey Creek project, the PG&E cost overrun, and became 

very unpopular, and that we did not complete it. It is complete 

today. And I hope we will be able to get the funding for Temperance Flat, and that we will complete it. 

But, gee, if it became unpopular 4 years from now or 6 years 

from now, and we decided, well, gee, maybe we ought to go back 

to the voters again, we all are so frustrated. It is so hard to get 

things done. And let us work together. Let us work through this 

47 

so that we can get things done, whether it be for water or transportation. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Costa. And as always, we look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion on this. And I think the 

difference is and the challenge here is, the $9.95 billion was approved by California voters. And there is a $38 billion shortfall that 

we are going to have to convince our colleagues whether or not this 

is a good investment for the other 49 States. That is something we 

will continue to discuss. 

And we certainly have a number of questions for a number of our 

witnesses here today that we will submit and ask for the record. 

I will ask you as a valley representative, as chair of the committee, 

we have a lot to work on with high-speed rail. We certainly have 

a lot to work on with the passenger reauthorization bill. But as a 

valley legislator, as valley legislators, all of us, this is about constituent services as well. And so, as we move forward and look at 

each of these individual parcels and the farming that is going to 

go on, the businesses that are going to continue on, we want to 

make sure that as constituent services, that we are addressing our 

community needs as well. And so we will be discussing each of 

those from that perspective as well. 

If there are no further questions from any members of the committee? Seeing none, I would like to thank each of our witnesses 

for their testimony today. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and 

unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by other Members or 

members of this panel today and witnesses to be included in the 

record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would like to thank our witnesses again for their 

testimony. If no Members have anything to add, the committee 

standards adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

48 


Insert offset folio 15 here 81259.015

STATEMENT OF 

DAN RICHARD 

CHAIRMAN OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

"Oversight o[California High-Speed Rail" 

May 28, 2013 

Madera Community College Center 

Madera, California 

Chainnan Denham, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my distinct honor and 

privilege to appear before you today to discuss the California High-Speed Rail Program. I am Dan Richard, 

Chainnan of the Board of Directors of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). In this statement, 

I will begin by reviewing why California regards this investment as critical to our state's future prosperity, 

especially in light of the population growth and environmental challenges we face in the coming decades. I will 

then provide a brief account of the development and evolution since 2008 of the California high-speed rail 

program, the Authority and our current Business Plan. Lastly, I will summarize our recent accomplishments and 

layout our priorities for moving forward with construction of the nation's first high-speed rail system this 

summer. 

The vision that has sustained this program over the years through both challenges and opportunities, and 

through setbacks and steps forward - is to develop a new, fast, reliable high-speed rail system to help keep the 

State of California and the nation moving as we grow. I am pleased and proud to report that over the last year, 

we have taken a number of tangible steps forward and made tremendous progress in furthering this vision. They 

include: 

The adoption of a the 2012 Business Plan that presents a logical and feasible means of developing the 

program through a phased implementation strategy and "blended investments" to be made in concert with 

the state's other passenger rail providers. 

A fundamental shift in vision that has been brought into clearer focus and central to it is a statewide rail 

modernization plan with high-speed rail at its core. 

Creating partnerships with other state and regional agencies and are working together on bringing the 

longer-range vision to fruition while also making early investments to generate early benefits. 

Filling out the Authority'S executive team, bringing new talent and leadership to manage this vast program 

Gaining approval and appropriation from the California State Legislature to begin construction. 

Receiving the Record of Decision from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on the Merced to Fresno 

section. clearing the path for construction to begin in the Central Valley. 
49 


Insert offset folio 16 here 81259.016

The Government Accountability Office issued a report after the most extensive audit to date of our program, 

giving the Authority high marks in each area it studied cost, revenue, ridership and economic impact 

analysis. 

Taking a major step forward by reaching settlements on three lawsuits filed by citizens and communities 

here in the Valley, after working hard to understand and address their concerns about how the system will 

affect them. 

Received, evaluated and opened bids on our first design-build contract in the Central Valley which also 

paves the way to break ground this summer. 

Investing in High-Speed Rail to Accommodate Future Mobility Needs ora Growing Population 

The starting point for considering why investing in high-speed rail is the reality that California continues to 

grow in population. Much of our infrastructure was built during the Administration of Governor Edmund G. 

(Pat) Brown when the state had less than half the population that it has now. In the 35 years I have lived in this 

state, the population has grown from 22 million to approximately 38 million. Sometime in the next 35 years, the 

state will exceed 50 million citizens, a gain equivalent to adding the population of Ohio. Therefore, the state 

must make critical infrastructure investments to accommodate its growing citizenry, millions of visitors from 

around the world, and to keep its economy thriving. These investments must be in transportation, water. energy. 

and education, all of which arc priorities for our Governor and our Legislature. 

Yet, as you know well, Mr. Chairman, we face many constraints in making the necessary commitments to meet 

these growth challenges. California has serious environmental constraints on growth; we must protect air 

quality, preserve water and our unique and precious agricultural resources, and be thoughtful about land usc. 

Our strongly-held view, which I will discuss below, is that expanding our existing network of roads and airports 

will be more expensive and more difficult to achieve than taking a different course. The leaders of our state, 

including not only this Governor but many of his modern day predecessors, as well as our Legislature and the 

people themselves, have determined that the development of an advanced high-speed rail system is a wise 

choice for meeting these mobility needs. The people of our state endorsed this view in 2008, when they voted to 

support issuance of almost $10 billion in bonds as the first step to develop this system. Shortly after that vote, 

the President and U.S. Congress provided additional support for the initiation of high-speed rail service in the 

United States. 

As the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, my fellow Board 

members and I arc committed to building and implementing the first high-speed rail system in the United States. 

While you know this program has been controversial, we enjoy the support of Governor Brown, our Legislature, 

the bipartisan mayors of our largest cities, business leaders throughout the state, and the opinions of our major 

metropolitan newspapers. Our goal is to provide critical linkages between our economic mega-regions and, by 

2030, provide a way for people to travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles - and major cities in between -

in under three hours. Our vision is that business travelers, leisure travelers, and tourists who corne here to 

experience all that California has to offer will be able to travel quickly, conveniently, and comfortably to and 

between the hearts of our vibrant urban centers. Like systems in Europe and Asia, when travelers arrive at their 

destination by high-speed rail they will be able to make easy, seamless transfers to urban transit systems like 

Metro in Los Angeles, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Muni in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority in the Silicon Valley; or to one of our intercity rail lines or commuter rail 

lines, like the Amtrak San Joaquin service and the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) train here in the Central 

Valley, to continue their journey wherever it may take them. 

2 
50 


Insert offset folio 17 here 81259.017

As you know, a similar effort is underway to develop a dedicated high-speed rail corridor bel ween Boston and 

Washington, D,c' called NextGcn high-speed rail, which is planned for implementation between 2025 and 

2040. Both the California and Northeast Corridor (NEC) are key drivers of the nation's economy and both 

feature some of the country's busiest roadways. In California, auto congestion drains $18.7 billion in wasted 

time and fuel every year' and flights between Los Angeles and the Bay Area - the busiest short-haul market in 

the U.S. are also among the most delayed in the country. There is clearly significant demand for intercity 

travel today and, as our population continues to grow, that demand will only increase. High-speed rail will 

integrate a new and much-needed element into California's transportation network to hclp ensure our state can 

keep moving toward a brighter economic and environmental future. 

Simply put, as Chairman Shuster said, "transportation is about business." Fast, reliable connections between 

economic centers allow businesses to compete in the global marketplace. Those that came before us understood 

that and made a decision to build lhe Interstate Highway System, which spawned tremendous economic growth. 

Like them, we are developing forward-looking systems to help connect the industries of the 21 " Century, and do 

so in a way that protects the environment and encourages sustainable community development. To that end, 

Amtrak and the Authority are collaborating to advance both programs, including joining forces in the search for 

proven high-speed rail train sets currently being manufactured and in commercial service that are capable of 

operating safely in excess of200 mph. 

Let me make a few more points to reinforce how critical I think this investment is to our state and nation's 

economy. Califomia is an economic powerhouse. If it was a country, and size was measured solely by GDP, 

we would be the ninth largest economy in the world with nearly $2 trillion GDP in 2011. Los Angeles, with its 

diverse economy, is the second largest city in the nation, and San Jose, home to Silicon Valley is the tenth 

largest. San francisco is the 14'h largest city and the second most densely populated major American city. We 

are home to world-renowned research universities including Stanford, USC, UC-Berkeley, UCLA and emerging 

centers ofexccllence like UC Merced and the California State University system. Many of the graduates of these 

and other universities go on to create or work for small, innovative start-up companies. Others go to work for 

one of the major Fortune 500 companies located here in California such as Apple, Hewlett Packard, Disney, 

Wells Fargo, and Occidental Petroleum. 

Keeping our businesses connecled to each other and to other companies around the world is critical for keeping 

our economy moving, and California has proven a growing demand for intercity travel - both by rail and by air. 

Over 8 million passengers per year fly between the Bay Area and Los Angeles area airports.' Even though we 

lack a critical rail link between Northern and Southem California, which we hope to close as quickly as possible, 

our Capitol, San Joaquin and Pacific Surfliner corridors rank second, third and fifth in the nation, carrying over 

5.5 million passengers annually. Between 1997 and 2012, ridership on these three intercity passenger rail 

corridors grew by 256 percent, 66 percent and 61 percent respectively.' 

And of course the main part of building a strong economy isjobs,jobs,jobs. California's high-speed rail system 

will do more than provide an efficient, economical, environmentally-friendly and safe way to travel around the 

state. Building and operating the high-speed rail system will directly employ tens of thousands of Californians 

while indirectly generating tens of thousands more jobs throughout the larger economy. 

1 The Road Information Program. 2009. TRIP Analysis of Highway Statistics, 2009, Federal Highway Administration (cited 

by Transportation California). 

2 Research and Innovating Techno!ogy Administration Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

3 Brookings Institute. A New Alignment: Strengthening America's Commitment to Passenger Rail. 

3 
51 


Insert offset folio 18 here 81259.018

As described in the 2012 Business Plan, work on the first segment of the high-speed rail system in the Central 

Valley will start this summer, putting thousands of Americans to work. The Central Valley has been hit 

particularly hard by the national recession, with the construction industry in the area facing some of the highest 

rates of unemployment in the state. High-speed rail construction will create 20,000 jobs annually for the next 

five years. These jobs will go to the people who need them the most, providing a significant boost to both the 

local economy here in the Central Valley and the economy of the rest of the state as a whole, while contributing 

to the national recovery. 

In addition to construction jobs, we anticipate considerable permanent employment associated with operating 

and maintaining the high-speed rail system. From train operators and maintenance yard workers to station 

managers and operations planners, high-speed rail will create permanent jobs that will always remain here. For 

example, the Initial Operating Section (lOS), once fully operational, is expected to directly employ an estimated 

1,300 people. 

Though I have largely focused on improving California's economy as a main justification for high-speed rail, 

many Californians also recognize and strongly support the environmental benefits of this transportation project. 

As you may be aware, in 2006, California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly referred to as 

AB 32, which called for the state to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and then 

by 2050 to further reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels. One of the key strategies the state is 

employing that is critical to reducing GHG emissions is an integrated alternative to single-occupancy vehicle 

trips. 11,e high-speed rail system, combined with existing transit, commuter and intercity rail systems, as well 

as strategic land-use decisions, will result in significant reductions in GHG emissions, improving air quality 

statewide. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) listed the high-speed rail 

system as, "one of the significant state projects," to make a positive contribution on the issue of global climate 

change. 

OVERVIEW OF TilE AUTHORITY'S PROGRESS 

The Authority and the high-speed rail program have gone through an evolution in the past few years, induding a 

new vision, new leadership and staff, and implementing a funding plan to start construction. As I have said, we 

went from a dream to reality and I want to highlight how we got where we are today. 

When I joined the Authority Board of Directors in August 2011, the focus at the time was on the issuance of the 

Draft 2012 Business Plan, released in November 2011. The Draft Plan detailed the true cost, in inflated year of 

expenditure dollars, for a fully dedicated, high-speed rail system connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

Shortly before the Draft Plan was released, Govemor Brown reaffirmed his commitment to the project, and 

tasked the Board of Directors and the Authority with redefining the approach of implementing the project in 

order to bring down the cost, provide immediate benefits to the taxpayers, and improve integration between the 

high-speed rail system and California's existing transportation infrastructure. 

With these guiding principles in mind, and input from numerous stakeholder groups, the Board of Directors 

adopted a Revised Business Plan (2012 Business Plan) in April 2012 that featured several improvements which 

serve as our foundation for implementing the high-speed rail system as part of the state's overall rail 

modernization program. 

4 
52 


Insert offset folio 19 here 81259.019

rhe Blended Approach 

In the 2012 Business Plan, the Authority recognized and committed to the benet;ts of shared corridors as part of 

what has come to be known as the Blended System. The Bleoded System will bcnefit California's overall 

passenger rail system by beginning construction on dedicated high-speed rail infrastructure in the Central 

Valley. while investing in improvements to existing regional rail systcms that high-speed trains will ultimately 

utilize to connect the mega-regions of the state. The Blended System strategy includes electrifying the Caltrain 

corridor between San Jose and San Francisco in a manner that allows future use by high-speed rail trains, as well 

as improvements along the Metrolink corridor between Palmdale and Anaheim. These early investments, made 

in collaboration with regional transportation partners, will lay the foundation for the high-speed rail system as it 

expands to connect the state, at the same time providing immediate benet;ts to the millions of Californians 

currently using these existing systems every year. 

The blended approach does not degrade ultimate high-speed rail service times. It was always the case that in 

some stretches of the system, trains will travel at speeds in excess of 200 mph, but travel in densely populated 

urban areas requires lower speeds. Because, the cost to construct dedicated high-speed rail tracks is more 

expensive, thc Authority sought to identify areas where upgrading and improving existing systems, as opposed 

to building wholly new infrastructure, made sense. By developing partnerships with existing transportation 

agencies, the Blended System brought the overall cost of the high-speed rail system down by close to $30 

billion. 

... 
53 


Insert offset folio 20 here 81259.020

A Statewide Rail Modernization Program for the 21st Century 

In concert with the blended approach f(lr lowering costs and reducing community impacts. the 2012 Business 

Plan laid the foundation for a statewide rail moderni7~tion program that called for parallel strategic investments 

in urban, commuter, and intercity rail systems to provide improved connectivity to the high-speed rail system. 

As part of this effort to create an integrated statewide transportation network. the Authority is working in 

concert with its rail partners throughout the state, including the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). ACE. 

the Peninsula Corridors Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), and the Southern California Regional Rail Commission 

(Metrolink), to name a few. Linking rail systems will greatly improve the state's mobility and economic 

competitiveness, and as previously stated, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. 

Ridership growth in California on its urban transit systems demonstrates that there is demand for greater 

mobility and connectivity through public transportation, particularly by raiL Thcse improvements will build 

upon already growing patronage, which will in turn increase demand for connections to and with the high-speed 

rail system when it is implemented. Together, all of these investments will create a new, modem statewide rail 

network that will keep California moving for decades to come. 

The 2012-13 State Budget: Initial Funding for Rail Modernization 

In 2008, California voters approved the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 2 t" 

Century (Proposition IA), which authorized a total of nearly $9 billion in bonds to construct a high-speed rail 

system connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles via the Central Valley, with future extensions to Sacramento 

and San Diego. Additionally, Proposition lA authorized $950 million for urban, commuter, and intercity rail 

projects that would enhance connectivity to the high-speed rail system and improve passenger safety. 

Then in 2009, the United States Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). 

wherein the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program was provided $8 billion. The Authority 

applied for, and was awarded approximately $1.9 billion to begin construction of the system in California's 

Central Valley. A combination of ARRA funding returned by other states and federal Fiscal Year 2010 

appropriations brought the overall federal investment in the program to almost $3.5 billion. 

In July 2012, the California Legislature approved Senate Bill 1029 (SB 1029), a component of the 2012-lJ 

Budget Act, which appropriates $2.6 billion in state bond funds and $3.2 billion in federal funds to begin 

construction in the Central Valley. Additionally, SB 1029 authorizes $1.1 billion in bond funds to match over 

$600 million from local sources in Northern California and $500 million from regional partners in Southern 

California to begin implementation of the Blended System. As mentioned above. these funds will be lL,ed to 

upgrade, electrify. and modernize the highly popular Ca!train corridor in the San Francisco Bay Area and to 

improve the Metrolink corridor in the Los Angeles Basin between Palmdale and Anaheim in anticipation of 

high-speed rail service. Finally, SB 1029 provides $819 million in connectivity funds for investments in urban, 

commuter and intercity rail programs statewide. All of these investments taken together provide the beginning 

of what will ultimately become a modernized and fully integrated statewide rail network. 

A benetit of the $4.5 billion in Proposition IA funds appropriated for rail modernization is that it leverages other 

regional, state and federal funds, resulting in almost $13 billion of improvements to California's rail systems. 

All projects benefiting trom the statewide modernization program are outlined in the attached "Connectivity and 

Bookends Fact Sheet." 
54 


Insert offset folio 21 here 81259.021

Partners in the Statewide Rail Modernization 

As part of the development of the 2012 Business Plan and the appropriation of the funding to begin work on the 

statewide network, the Authority recognized a greater need to involve state and regional transportation partners. 

The high-speed rail project has served as a catalyst for the pursuit and development of many regional rail 

improvements. As we arc in Madera County in the heart of the Central Valley today, I would like to focus on 

our collaborative efforts here in the Central Valley regarding the integration of the San Joaquin intercity and 

ACE systems with the high-speed rail system. 

The San Joaquin intercity passenger rail service extends 365 miles between the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento 

and the Bay Area providing direct rail service to II counties with 17 stations along the route. Extensive 

connecting bus services bring the San Joaquin service to the rest of the state as well. As I have noted, ridership 

on the San Joaquin service has increased dramatically in the last five years making this one of Amtrak's fastest 

growing lines. Its 90 percent on-time performance also makes it one of the most reliable rail services in the 

nation. With ridership now over 1.1 million annual riders, the San Joaquin service significantly reduces 

automobile vehicle miles traveled in the San Joaquin Corridor. This eases congestion on State Route 99 and 

helps improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin service will serve as a perfect complement 

to the high-speed rail system in the near term. It will playa particularly important role in supporting the 

operations of our Initial Operating Section (lOS) by connecting passengers to the Bay Area and Sacramento 

before our high-speed lines arc extended. The Authority continues to work with the Northern California Rail 

Partners Working Group to identify the necessary improvements to increase frequency, reduce travel times, 

extend the service to additional markets, and improve the safety and reliability of the system. 

Turning to the Altamont Corridor, for nearly 15 years ACE has served commuters, connecting the San Joaquin 

Valley, Eastern Alameda County, and the Silicon Valley. With a recently added fourth-daily round trip, ACE 

ridership is at an all-time high with over I million annual riders. In October, ACE will open a state-of-the-art 

maintenance facility which will improve current operations and help enable future growth of the service. 

Collaborating with the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), which administers the ACE system, 

the Authority's focus will be on facilitating the delivery of near-term incremental improvements to the existing 

ACE service. These improvements include connecting the ACE service to the northern terminus of the lOS in 

Merced by 2022. It should be notcd that ACE is planning to expand - first to Modesto, then to Merced, and 

finally to Sacramento. Opening up new commuter and intercity markets will also allow ACE to playa critical 

role as a "feeder" service to high-speed rail. The Authority is committed to working with SJRRC to help secure 

the necessary funding to implement these expansion plans. 

As I have stated, the Authority's leadership, at the direction of Governor Brown, has greatly reJined its vision 

for high-speed rail in California. This shift from the previous thinking of high-speed rail as an insular, separate 

enginecring exercise to one where it is integral to the broader transportation system, has led to greater support 

from both the public and rail operators throughout the statc, 

Administration and Oversight: Government People Making Government Decisions 

Since completion of the 2012 Business Plan, we have made a great effort to bring together a world class team to 

lead the implementation ofthe program. One noteworthy criticism of the program in years past was that it relied 

too heavily on consultants and that key leadership positions were vacant. To that end, since early 2012, we have 

filled all of the positions on our Executive Team with highly qualified individuals with proven records on 

infrastructure project management and delivery, We have added dozens of state staff at the Authority to take 

7 
55 


Insert offset folio 22 here 81259.022

over the work formerly done by consultants, yet we will remain lean and rely on support from the private sector, 

as this strategy best suits the project. 

In addition to growing our headquarters team in Sacramento, we have brought on three Regional Directors and 

regional staffto ensure that we have a strong presence across the state and in local communities. These regional 

teams are working directly with stakeholders and citizens affected by the project. We are pleased to have our 

Central California Regional Office open in downtown Fresno. We are also opening offices in San Jose and Los 

Angeles. 

As we have been building our team, I am happy to report that many outstanding concerns expressed by the 

Legislature, the independent Peer Review Group and the California State Auditor have been addressed. 

Specifically, in January 2012, the California State Auditor, tasked with providing "nonpartisan, accurate, and 

timely assessments of California government's financial and operational activities in compliance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards," released a report recommending the Authority take several actions 

related to the management and implementation of the high-speed rail project. In total, this report made 23 

recommendations rclated to consultant oversight, risk management, expenditure tracking and cost reporting, 

staffing, information technology, and contracting practices. To date, the Authority has fully implemented 18 of 

the Auditor's 23 recommendations, with the remainder either partially implemented or pending the release of the 

2014 Business Plan. As we continue to improve these processes and implement the recommendations, we are 

pleased the State Auditor recently stated that, "the Authority has made tremendous progress." 

Cost Estimates, Revenue and Ridership: Realistic Numbers Backed by Outside Experts 

In 2011, Authority leadership began a focused and determined effort to improve those projections, including 

seeking rigorous review by independent experts. More recently, as a result of a bipartisan Congressional 

request, the GAO spent more than a year taking the most comprehensive look to date at the cost estimates, 

ridership and revenue forecasts, and economic impact analyses that were presented in the 2012 Business Plan. 

In updating our forecasts and estimates, we took seriously the various reviews and criticisms that had been made 

of prior forecasts. We have worked diligently to address them, to make appropriate changes and apply valid 

guidelines and best practices. We are now confident that the forecasts presented in the 2012 Business Plan have 

been confirmed through multiple external reviews as being consistent with industry best practices by multiple 

external reviews. We are also pleased that the GAO found those numbers to be based on reasonable 

assumptions and sound methods. However further refinements are appropriate and we will incorporate the 

suggestions ofthe GAO, the independent Peer Review Group. and others in future forecasts. 

Cost Estimates 

The cost estimates included in the 2012 Business Plan are portrayed in fully-inflated, year-of-expenditure 

dollars to provide an accurate picture of the cost of building the system over time. The GAO found that the 

Authority'S cost estimates met all applicable guidance from the FRA and United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) and that, "the Authority substantially met besl praelices in [the GAO's] Cosl Guide for 

producing accurate cost estimates.'" This finding is especially telling because the Authority was required to 

follow FRA guidance, though not the GAO Cost Guide itself. The report also highlights the Authority's ellorts 

to produce cost estimates that correctly reflect the program's scope. 

4 GAO Report 13-304 (http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653401.pdf) 

8 
56 


Insert offset folio 23 here 81259.023

Interestingly, in a separate report, the GAO compiled sixteen other projects across eight government agencies 

where they reviewed the projects' cost estimating methodologies. Only two of these sixteen scored better than 

the Authority's cost estimates and both of those were from agencies that routinely work with the GAO Cost 

Guide (Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security).5 

Ridership Projectiol1s 

The ability to attract riders will ultimately drive the high-speed rail system's financial performance and its 

environmental benefits. We have made significant efforts to refine, improve, and update our ridership and 

revenue forecasts. Since 2010, we have subjected our work to rigorous scrutiny by a Ridership Technical 

Advisory Panel (Panel) comprised of international experts in travel demand forecasting. The Panel has spent the 

last two years looking at the model inputs, assumptions, and calculations that have gone into the forecasts and, 

more recently, the conclusions from the GAO report. 

For the ridership forecasts used in the 2012 Business Plan, the Panel concluded that, "the model produces results 

that arc reasonable and within expected ranges for the current environmental planning and Business Plan 

applications of the mode I.'" With confidence from the Panel's review that the model fundamentals arc sound, 

we are updating specific model components as new information and input data becomes available. 

To further evaluate our model, we conducted a series of sensitivity tests in coordination with the Panel. This 

involved preparing forecasts with our ridership model but using service characteristics similar to those of the 

Aeela in the Northeast Corridor. Our goal was to see if our model renected "real lit,," based on a currently 

operating service. After reviewing the resuits, the Panel stated that, "The Panel endorses this report as an 

excellent indication that the ridership estimates reported by Cambridge Systematics in support of the 2012 

Business Plan are reasonable, possibly even conservative.'" This test helped further bolster confidence that our 

ridership model performs effectively. 

The GAO reviewed our ridership and revenue forecasts and their findings reaffirmed the Panel's conclusions. 

The GAO concluded that the Authority followed all applicable best practices and, "found the Authority'S 

ridership and revenue forecasts to be reasonable." As noted, we will continue to refine and improve our 

forecasts. 

Operatiol1s al1d Mail1lel1al1ce Cost Projectiol1s 

For the 2012 Business Plan, we used a relatively high-level Operations and Maintenance (O&M) cost model 

which was mostly based on international experiences with high-speed rail. We used this model to estimate 

O&M costs and to test the system's ability to operate without a subsidy under various phasing and 

implementation scenarios. Subsequent to that, as part of our ongoing effort to continue improving our forecasts 

and estimates, we asked the International Union of Railways (UIC/IUR), to review our O&M east model. The 

UIC is a worldwide rail industry organization with more than 200 members across all five continents. Its 

purpose is to facilitate the sharing of best practices and set industry standards. Concurrent with the UIC review, 

we began developing a "bottom-up" cost model for use in our 2014 Business Plan. 

'GAO Report 12-629 (http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/592273.pdf) 

6 Ridership Technical Advisory Panel2 T1d Report 

(http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/abp_uJiridership/ridership revenue peer rpt2.pdf) 

7 Frank Koppelman letter to Mike Rossi, January 27, 2012 

9 
57 


Insert offset folio 24 here 81259.024

The UIC established a team of industry experts in the fields of high-speed rail operations and maintenance from 

several European high-speed rail operators. After a thorough examination, this team stated that they had 

"reviewed and concurred with most of the assumptions used in forecasting the O&M costs.'" They found the 

2012 Business Plan forecasts to be comparable to the UTC experts' established costs for rolling stock and 

infrastructure maintenance. Finally, they provided a list of nineteen recommendations to continue improving our 

O&M cost estimating methods and assumptions. Again, we have committed to incorporatc these 

recommcndations and those of the GAO and independent Peer Rcvicw Group in our 2014 Busincss Plan. 

Economic Impacts and Benefit-Cost Analysis 

For the 2012 Business Plan, the Authority conducted the first comprchcnsive economic impact and benefit-cost 

analysis of the system. Among other things, these analyses compared thc benefits to the state and national 

economies relative to the costs of building, maintaining, and operating the system and estimated the potential to 

create short-term construction and long-termjobs. 

In reviewing our economic impact analysis and the benefit-cost analysis, the GAO found that, "the Authority did 

a comprehensive job in identifying the potential economic impacts of thc high-speed rail project." The GAO, 

likc the UIC, offered constructive recommendations on ways that we might improve our analyses, and we are 

working to addrcss those as we prepare to update these analyscs for the 2014 Business Plan. 

FULFILLING NEW AUTHORITY COMMITMENTS 

The Authority's Board of Directors also identified other areas where we owcd the citizens of California new and 

firm commitments to do a better job. First among those was to improve our relationships with the communities 

that will be affected by the construction or operation of the high-speed rail systcm. A major focus of Board 

members and our leadership team in the past 18 months has been to connect with the people of California and 

commit wholeheartcdly to partnering with communities to help build this project. 

Working with the Central Valley Community 

To fulfill our renewed commitment to the people of the Central Valley, we began a robust outreach and 

stakeholdcr cngagement approach to give the public an avenue to be directly included and involved in the 

process of planning and implementing the project. I personally have spent a great deal of time in the Valley, 

meeting with affected growers, businesses and residents. We are fortunate that one of our most active Board 

members, Vice-Chair Tom Richards, a highly respected businessman from Fresno, has devoted enormous efforts 

to make certain that high-speed rail can bring benefits and not just challenges to this region. 

Since then, with the addition of our Regional Director and growing statT, the Authority has held more than 600 

meetings in the Central Valley with elected officials, business and property owners, and the community at large. 

We have found that these outreach efforts have not only served as a tool to provide vital infonnation to those 

potentially or actually affected by the high-speed rail alignments, but also as invaluable opportunities to improve 

our plans as a result of community input. 

For example, in the County of Kings alone, we have had over 65 meetings with affected property owners, local 

governments, and business groups. [ have personally made more appearances before the Kings County Board of 

Supervisors than any other elected body in the State of California, aside from the State Legislature. I have spent 

this time in Kings County in good faith, to learn more about the unique issues facing the County and to explore 

8 UIC Peer Review of Operating and Maintenance Costs of the California High-Speed Rail Project 

10 
58 


Insert offset folio 25 here 81259.025

all possible options for resolving them. Most recently, our Central California Regional team had direct contact 

with each and every property owner along the proposed alignments. 

These etforts have led to many positive outcomes throughout the Central Valley. Our collaborative approach 

has offered a sense of certainty to many of the affected communities and we continue to work towards creative 

solutions to pressing problems. However, we still face many issucs in these communities and we remain 

committed to working through them in a manner that is forthright and respectful. 

Improved Communications and Outreach with Business and Property Owners 

We have also been working with private property owners and businesses that will be impacted by the project. 

We understand that private property owners will be affected by the construction of the high-speed rail system 

and we are committed to doing everything we can to educate, inform, and work collaboratively with them. This 

runs the gamut from the individual property owner to the major businesses or organizations that will experience 

significant impacts to their facilities or operations duc to the project. 

As an example of our commitment to work with the business community, the Authority has teamed up with thc 

City of Fresno and thc Frcsno Economic Development Corporation to open a "Onc-Stop Shop" in Fresno City 

Hall to provide resources to businesses along the alignment. This means everything from relocation assistance 

to pcrmitting assistancc to business planning help. Our Frcsno Rcgional Office is also staffed up with experts to 

help businesses as well. 

Engaging the Central Valley Wye Options 

In our continued commitment to thc people of the Central Valley, the Authority took a step hack and realized 

that more needed to be done, right hcre in Madera when it came to decisions related to the Central Valley Wye. 

Just down the street from here is the junction of the Central Vallcy Wye whcre high-speed trains will head west 

to San Jose/San Francisco, north to Sacramento, and south to Fresno/Los Angeles. In total, the Wye will span 

roughly 12 square miles of land ncar Chowchilla and the community of Fairmead. 

Since 2009, the Authority has worked with residents, stakeholders and others to identify a range of 14 Wye 

alternativcs. In late 2012, we recognized that there might be an opportunity to extend early construction further 

north if the competitive bidding environmcnt led to lower than estimated construction bids. 

In attempting to narrow the range of alternatives for the Wye, and thus reducc uncertainty for property owners, 

the Authority engaged a number of stakeholdcrs and members of the public. This includcd consulting with 

resource and regulatory agencies and membcrs of the public and othcr stakeholders including: city and county 

elected officials from throughout the atfected region: school districts; farm bureaus: irrigation districts; and 

othcr community-based organizations. 

This outreach and consultation allowed the Authority to narrow the range of alternatives trom 14 to six in 

January 2013. In order to further narrow these alternatives and provide landowners with more information and 

clarity, the Authority embarked on another effort to seck public and stakeholder input. This included 15 

stakeholder meetings and two community meetings open to the pUblic. One meeting took place in Fairmead, and 

the other in Chowchilla, with a total of about 500 people attending. 

11 
59 


Insert offset folio 26 here 81259.026

Ultimately, atter this broad and comprehensive public outreach, the Authority narrowed the range of alternatives 

from six to four as seen below. These alternatives arc the: (I) SR 152 (South) to Road 18; (2) SR 152 (North) to 

Road 13; (3) SR 152 (North) to Road 18; and, (4) Avenue 21 to Road 13. 

We expect to identify a preferred alternative from these four options this fall after continued public outreach, 

stakeholder engagement and work with regulatory agencies. In fact. next week we will be meeting with a 

handful of residents in Fairmead to review alignment options and listen to their concerns as we move the process 

forward. 

Working with the Agricultural Community 

The new leadership at the Authority has taken many positive steps to improve the relationship and ensure that 

the high-speed rail system is built in a way that is attentive to the needs of the agricultural community. Some 

significant developments on that front include: 

The Agricultural Working Group 

The Agricultural Working Group was established as an independent group to assist the Authority with 

developing the high-speed rail program. The group's goals include: refining the list of issues and concerns 

within the agricultural industry: utilizing the agricultural expertise of the resource specialists to enbance the 

EIR/EIS process and answer potential agricultural impacts; and, engaging resource specialists to assist 

development of mitigation measures and guidelines to minimize agricultural impacts during construction, 

implementation and operation of the high-speed rail project 

Members of the Agricultural Working Group are specialists representing the academic, government, and agribusiness sectors. They are contributing to improved information sharing, are working to address key iss lies 

raised by the Central Valley agricultural community and arc helping improve decision-making by the Authority 

12 
60 


Insert offset folio 27 here 81259.027

on issues related to the agricultural industry. To date, the Agricultural Working Group has produced six "white 

papers" studying a broad range of impacts from pollination to irrigation. 

Interagency Agreement with the California Department of Conservation 

On May J, 20 12, the Board of Directors certified the Merced to Fresno EIRJEIS, which included a mitigation 

commitment to enter into an agreement wilh the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to implement 

the preservation of farmland. This preservation is to occur by identifying suitable agricultural land for mitigation 

of project impacts and by funding the purchase of agricultural easements from willing sellers. 

The perfornlance standards for this measure are to preserve Important Farmland in an amount commensuratc 

with the quantity and quality of the converted timnlands, within the same agricultural regions as thc impacts 

occur, at a replacement ratio of not less than 1: 1. That is, for every acre impacted at least one acre will be 

preserved in perpetuity. This is an important commitment given all of the farmland that is already being lost to 

development; according to the DOC between 2000 and 2008, over 115,000 acres of Important Farmland were 

lost to development in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Purchase of the easements, along with DOC staff support, is estimated to cost $20 million, of which $18 million 

is for easement acquisition. Of the $18 million, approximately $2.5 million will be spent to purchase easements 

on 310 acres for our first construction segment from Madera to Fresno, with the remaining funds to be used on 

the Fresno to Bakersfield project section pending final environmental approvals. Easements on roughly 2,190 

acres are planned for that section. 

Settling Central Valley Litigation 

Just last month, the Authority announced a major step forward in reaching a settlement with a number of Central 

Valley local governments and concerned citizens, including the Madera and Merced County Farm Bureaus and 

Preserve Our Heritage. In fact, two of today's panel members were part of this historic agreement. The 

settlement agreement also brought to an end the final California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit 

challenging the Merced to Fresno project section environmental documents. We also reached settlements wilh 

two other groups form the Valley challenging the project. Most importantly, the agreement provides for the 

preservation of important farmland and mitigation of effects of high-speed rail construction on agricultural 

operations through an Agricultural Mitigation Fund funded at over $4 million. 

The settlement agreement is a mutually beneficial agreement that integrates local expertise into the agricultural 

mitigation for the project section and provides protections for the agricultural community in Madera and Merced 

County and the Central Valley. Now, this agreement and the agricultural mitigation is on top of the Authority'S 

ongoing mitigation efforts through the California Department of Conservation detailed above. The agreement 

also provides consultation on the Central Valley Wye to ensure that all concerns are addressed. 

As mentioned above. the Authority settled two other lawsuits with the City of Chowchilla and a group of 

Central Valley businesses related to challenges to the environmental review process. In all three settlements, the 

Authority worked with elected officials, stakeholders and members of the community to address their concerns. 

These settlements represent just a portion of the commitment that the Authority has made in the region and the 

work we have done. 

13 
61 


Insert offset folio 28 here 81259.028

Getting to Work: Awarding Construction Package 1 

As we move to break ground this summer on the high-speed rail system. our first construction segment. or 

Construction Package I (CPl). is a 29 mile stretch from Madera County Avenue 17 -- just up the road here -- to 

the City of Fresno. In November 20 II. the Authority issued a Request for Qualification (RFQ) for potential 

design-build teams interested in CPI. (Design-build combines project design and construction in a single 

contract.) Based on those submissions. five teams were reviewed and detennined to be fully capable of meeting 

all legal and technical requirements to perfonn the work on the project. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was 

subsequently released in March 2012. inviting the five teams to prepare and submit f(lrmal proposals for CPI. 

As is typical in design-build procurements, the Authority and the five potential bidders wcnt through an iterative 

proeess. in which the bidders raised questions and concerns about particular provisions of the RFP, and thc RFP 

was then modified through addenda to address their concerns. For the RFP for CP I, the Authority issued nine 

addenda over an eight-month period. The changes included in these addenda ranged from highly detailed 

technical clarifications to broader issues relating to liability and the manner in which the Authority would 

evaluate and score the proposals. Each addendum was reviewed by the Authority's legal counsel and the Office 

of the Attorney General. approved by the FRA, and published on the Authority's website available for public 

review and inspection. 

After opening the bids, the Authority identified Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons, a joint venture as the "apparent 

best value" for the design-build contract. The Authority had estimated the cost for the design-build contract to 

be between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion while the Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons bid came in at $985.142,530. 

On May 17. as consistent with the procurement process, the Authority issued the notice of contract award 

recommendation to Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons. 

Putting Americans Back to Work: Expanding Opportunities 

As previously mentioned in my discussion of the benefits of high-speed rail and the many reasons for investing 

in it, the job creation and economic development associated with constructing and operating the system will be 

significant. However, in order to fully realize these benefits, we at the Authority must ensure that we enhance 

the public's ability to participate in the project. As described below, we have responded to this challenge by 

implementing an aggressive small business program. supportingjob training and workforce development efforts, 

including efforts to hire locally within the boundaries of federal law. 

Small, Disadvantaged, and Disabled Veteran Owned Businesses 

The Authority is committed to small businesses playing a major role in building the statewide high-speed rail 

program. [n November 20 II, the Board of Directors took a bold step in approving a small business program 

that has an aggressive 30 percent goal for small business participation, including: Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprises (DBE). Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises (DVBE) and Micro-Businesses (MB). The 

program's 30 percent small business participation goal for contracts let by the Authority includes a 10 percent 

DBE participation goal and 3 percent DVBE participation goal. This action highlights our commitment to 

invest in small businesses in California and across the nation. 

The Authority set forth several objectives to meet that 30 percent goal. One of our top objectives is to ensure 

that the Authority created a small business program that is flexible, attainable, efficient and credible. We have 

also established a Small Business Advocate, who is conducting a robust and inclusive outreach program to 

increase small business participation, a key to our success in achieving small business goals. 

14 
62 


Insert offset folio 29 here 81259.029

Just last month, we began a series of free statewide workshops to help certify small businesses that want to 

participate. We will also be providing small businesses with hands-on technical assistance that includes on-thespot certification that can be completed online. Participants will also receive pertinent information on upcoming 

procurement opportunities around the state that would be of interest to them. 

We are partnering with federal, state and local agencies to expand outreach and marketing in support of small 

business utilization on the project. Recent partnerships have been established with the U.S. Small Business 

Administration and the U.S. Minority Business Development Agency (U.S. MBDA). Earlier this month, the 

Authority participated in the grand opening of the U.S. MBDA Business Center in Fresno. The Center will 

provide minority-owned firms with professional management and technical assistance. information for regional 

contracting opportunities and help for small businesses to get certitied and ready for work. 

Like you, Mr. Chairman, the Authority is committed to the ensuring the ability of Disabled Veteran Business 

Enterprises (DVBE) to participate in the project. In fact, we are fortunate to have Syngon "Sy" Hare, the owner 

of a California certified DVBE, working on the project right now. Mr. Hare conducts and produces market 

analysis reports for the Authority and, before moving into the financial world, served in the U.S Air Force. 

The Authority is continually seeking new and innovative approaches to improve its policies and procedures to 

eliminate any barriers and increase small business utilization. As a result, the Board of Directors approved the 

formation of a Business Advisory Council (Council) in April 2012. The Council consists of representatives from 

statewide construction and professional services business trade associations and serves as a forum to provide 

essential input and advice to the Authority in implementing practices that effect andlor impact the small business 

community. 

We will need small business participation for years to come to make this project a success and look forward to 

working with this Committee and others to ensure those businesses have ample opportunity to participate. 

Job Training and Workforce Development 

In April, the Fresno Regional Workforce Investment Board (WlB) received a $1.5 million grant to train people 

for jobs building the high-speed rail system. The grant, funded by the Workforce Investment Act. will 

underwrite skills training for hundreds of people. Once would-be workers are screened, trained and certified as 

qualified workers for various construction jobs and other positions. they will be referred by Fresno WlB to 

contractors looking for employees. 

The Fresno WlB set up a website, www.hsrjobs.com. where people can register to learn if they qualify for grantfunded training or arc eligible for targeted hiring as "disadvantaged" workers, including veterans or the longterm unemployed. The Fresno WlB received over 1,000 registrants within the first rew weeks of the 

announcement and due to an overwhelming interest had to temporarily suspend registration. 

Additionally, we are particularly excited to sec a number of the Valley's educational institutions, including the 

University of California Merced and the California State University in Bakersfield, embark on educational 

programs to prepare engineering students and others to enter careers in the high-speed rail support industry that 

is antici pated to emerge here. 

15 
63 


Insert offset folio 30 here 81259.030

LOOKING FORWARD IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM 

We are proud of the progress we've made to date and are focused intently on breaking ground this summer on 

the first construction section of the Initial Operating Section (lOS). Completing the lOS will achieve the goal of 

closing the rail gap between Northern and Southern California and our goal of introducing the first fully 

operational high-speed rail service in the nation. Our efforts going forward are focused on building the Central 

Valley project and then completing the lOS as expeditiously as possible. The Central Valley is fully funded and 

we are now looking forward to developing solid public private partnerships to implement the lOS and the 

statewide system. 

Future Funding Including the Role of the Private Sector 

Our current plan estimates that the total cost, in fully inflated dollars. to build a high-speed rail system 

connecting Los Angeles with San Francisco, will be $68 billion (equating to approximately $53.4 billion in 

constant year 2011 dollars). To date, we have a>sembled approximately $13 billion in funding, through a 

combination of state bonds and federal appropriations. We know that this Committee and the public at large 

have asked about our plans for future funding to complete the system. 

As this Committee knows well, any major infrastructure project of this size and complexity would be funded 

from a combination of federal, state, or local sources. In the case of California's high-speed rail program, we 

have the additional opportunity to include significant private sector investment in the funding matrix. This is 

because we are highly confident that the program will generate net operating cash flows. This has been the near 

universal experience of high-speed rail systems around the world, namely, that once built, i.e., once the capital is 

expended, the systems generate net positive operating cash flows. Some high-speed rail systems have generated 

enough revenue to go even further and pay back some of the initial capital expenditure. 

Like all projects of this magnitude and at this stage in their development, we do not have a precise funding plan 

for the entire system; however, we plan on completing it from a combination of sources including the following: 

Direct Private Sector Investment 

As discussed above, we plan to operate the high-speed rail system as a public-private partnership, with an initial 

public sector investment. Once this initial investment is made, we would essentially sell the projected future 

revenue stream to the private sector, giving them the rights to operate the system. Our 2012 Business Plan 

projects that the Bay Area to Los Angeles Basin system would generate enough revenue to cover approximately 

20 percent of its capital costs. This number would increase with higher ridership or a lower discount factor. 

Ancillary Private Sector Revenues/rom Value Maximization 

The 520-mile Los Angeles/Anaheim to San Francisco high-speed rail system will be a valuable economic 

resource. We are beginning an assessment of value maximiz.ation, including leasing of right-of-way for fiber 

optic cable pathways and energy development. Additionally, ancillary revenues will corne from parking, 

advertising, marketing and other potential sources including real estate development. It should be noted that in 

Japan, approximately one-third of revenues realized by the private sector operator Japan Rail East, come from 

rents and leases associated with real estate development at and around high-speed rail stations. The California 

Legislature is considering legislation to allow for tax increment financing for development around our highspeed rail stations and we see enormous opportunities for value capture from transit-oriented development. 

16 
64 


Insert offset folio 31 here 81259.031

Once the lOS has been completed and operational, the opportunity for private investment is greatly increased 

and those private funds can be used to pay for further system expansion, Additionally, I will describe our 

conversations with potential private sector investors and how they have helped us refine our plans to optimize 

our ability to leverage private sector funds and expertise, while giving the taxpayers the most bang for their 

buck. 

Timing of Private Sector Investment 

The high-speed rail system will neither be entirely a public works project, nor will it be a fully privatized 

system. It wil! be a partnership betwecn the public sector (federal, state, and local) and the private sector. This is 

an internationally proven investment model and is common to almost al! recent high-speed rail projects in the 

world, where capital invcstmcnt begins with the public sector and then becomes shared with the private sector. 

Demonstrating this relationship, systems in France, Spain, and The Netherlands have all attracted private 

investment once ridership was established or by using availability-based public-private partnership structures. 

These examples demonstrate that the critical question is not whether the privatc sector will invest in high-speed 

rail but when is the optimal time for the private sector to invest in the program. In the absence of completion 

and revenue guarantees, the private sector will want to see a proven revenue stream from a completed project 

phase prior to their willingness to invest. 

If we seek private investment too soon, we will be shifting too much risk to the private sector, which would 

reduce the amount of investment the private sector would be able to provide and thus require more public funds. 

Instead, we intend to follow the example of countless systems from around the world that have used an initial 

investment of public funds to demonstrate the system's financial potential and then leveraged that performance 

to bring in the private sector. To us, this is a clear choice; it is based on lessons learned from international 

systems, and we are confident that this approach will maximize private sector investment over the course of the 

system's development. Having said that, let me bc clear: our door is certainly open to any alternative private 

sector investment approaches that they wish to suggest. 

In its review of the Authority's plans, the GAO confinned that this is the right order for public and private 

investment. The GAO stated that, "our past work on high-speed rail systems has shown that private sector 

investment is easier to attract only after the public sector has made a substantial capital investment in the 

system. The Authority's plan is consistent with this funding approach.'" 

Discussions with Private Investors 

To understand the private sector's specific interest in this program, the Authority has had extensive input from 

and discussions with potential private sector participants. In 20 II, the Authority issued a Request for 

Expressions of Interest (RFEI) and received more than 1,100 responses. The responses identified the capability 

and interest of private entities related to development, financing. operations, project scale, risk appetite, and 

other factors. 

Following up on the results of the RFEI, in January 2012, the Authority met with eight infi-astructure investment 

firms, which confinned their interest in investing in the program. We also had extensive discussions regarding 

the appropriate timing for private sector investment. 

9 GAO Report 13-304 (http://www.gao.gov/assots/660/653401.pdf) 

17 
65 


Insert offset folio 32 here 81259.032

1 would like to note that clements of cost, schedule, and delivery risk arc already being transferred to the private 

sector through the use of design-build contracts for the construction that will he starting soon here in the Central 

Valley. As the system is further developed, the Authority will look to increase its transfer of risk to the private 

sector by incorporating an operating performance element. The Authority will continue to assess private capital 

markets, as market conditions, financing tools, and expectations change over time. 

State Cap and Trade Funding 

The 2012 Business Plan identified state Cap and Trade revenue as a potential backstop for the high-speed rail 

project should additional funding fail to materialize. Even more recently, the California Department of Finance, 

in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), released an investment plan for the use of Cap 

and Trade revenues covering the initial three years of the program. The plan specifically referenced the highspeed rail project, as part of the statewide rail modernization program and sustainable community development, 

as an eligible investment for these revenues. 

Federal Funding: Reauthorization of PRIIA and Tax Policy 

As already discussed, we have evaluated how high-speed rail systems are implemented, funded and financed 

around the world. We continue to draw on international experience and lessons learned to develop a business 

model that fits our national and state context. We arc following the model where the public sector makes the 

initial investment which then, if done properly, altracts private investment. To that end, we will forge a publicprivate partnership to implement our program. 

Further, as the federal government invested in the Interstate Highway System - because it was good for our 

economy - we believe that it is reasonable for the federal government to continue investing in intercity and high 

speed passenger rail systems, like California's. 

As the committee looks ahead to reauthorizing the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 

(PRIlA), we have some general views on how federal assistance should be structured for projects like ours. 

A review of tbe variety of high-speed rail projects being proposed nationwide makes it clear that there is no 

single model for developing, financing and operating intercity passenger rail in this country. In California, we 

are seeking to develop high-speed rail. So are Texas, Nevada and the NEe. In the Midwest, Northwest and 

Florida, lower speeds arc being considered. Different project delivery methods and different financial plans 

come along with the choiec for the type of service to be provided in a given corridor. 

With this diversity in mind, we believe the federal govcrnment should make available a variety of forms of 

assistance to high-speed rail projects around the country. For our program here in California, a blend of federal 

grants and loans would likely be the most bcneticial form of federal investment. But aside from making direct 

tinancial assistancc available, the federal government can also help us attract private investment by using the tax 

code to create investment incentives. Tax credits and deductions havc becn used over decades to induee private 

equity and debt investment for projects that bring public benefits. When Congress wants to channel investment 

to worthy infrastructure projects, it has created and enhanced these types of incentives. If Congress is lookingas we are - to bring private investment into our project, sending the right signal to thc investment community 

through the tax code would be one way to help make that happen. 

18 
66 


Insert offset folio 33 here 81259.033

CONCLUSION 

In closing, I would like to thank you again for allowing me to provide you with an update on the exciting 

progress the Authority has made towards implementing the nation's first high-speed rail system. My goal has 

been to convey to you why we believe that high-speed rail is not only a critically-needed investment for the 

future of transportation in California but a common sense investment as well; that the Authority has developed a 

viable Business Plan with realistic and peer-reviewed analysis supporting it; and that a change in leadership at 

the Authority has helped us improve contidence in the program overall and enabled it to make tremendous 

progress over the past year and a half. I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to ensure that 

the nation's first high-speed rail system is built correctly, cost-e!fectively and in the best interest of the nation's 

taxpayers and I hope to see all of you at the groundbreaking this summer. 

19 
67 


Insert offset folio 34 here 81259.034

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) i, responsible for planning, designing, building 

and operation of the first high-speed r.il system in the nation, California high-speed rail will connect the 

mega~re9ions of the state, contribute to economic development and a deaner environment, create jobs 

and preserve agricultural and protected lands~ By 2029, the system wHi run from San Frandsco to the 

los Ange'e. basin in under three hours at speeds capable of "ver 200 miles per hour, The system will 

eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, totaling 800 mile. with up to 24 stations, In addition, 

the Authority is working with regional partners 10 implement a statewide rail modernization plan that will 

invest billions of dollars in local and regional rail lines to meet the state's 21st century transportation needs. 

l012-B BUDGET ACT (SENATE SILl1029J, CONNECTIVITY AND BOOKEND INVESTMENTS 

The foUow11'1g 

CALTRAIN 'ELECTRlfICiATION 

l;)vestme!lt 10 51.S bill1on. (8ookendJ(ormectivityl 

CsI ... (l) Metro 
68 


Insert offset folio 35 here 81259.035

co,,,UCTlV.yy Ik BOOKENDS. MAY 2013 II!!!:, 

~ CAUFORNIA H~h 5pwd !knlAvthmify 

BART - MILLBRAE STATION TRACK IMPROVEMENTS", CAR PURCHASE 

581029 provides 5145 m\lHon to lengthen track at the MlHbrae Station (Go').') pl<'ltformmnn0ction to hlgh'speed raj!), <mel forthe 

purchase of new BART (ar<;, The inv(>stment wi!! b-e matched by other funding for a total investment of $290 mitllon. BART 

is also contributing $38 miHion of its share for the design, jnsta!lrltion. testinQ, training and wananty for an inte!Hgent network of 

signals, sensors, train trJcking technology, and (omputer systems on the Caitl'dln Corridor ,)$ Pdft or Caftrain's ildvanced signaling 

system, (CQrmectivlty) 

SF MUNI- CENTRAL SUBWAY 

S8 1029 provides $61 mHHon to conqfHct a 1 ,'7'mile 1;'xtension of light rail line from 4th & King Stre-ets to Chinatown (downtown 

Siln francisco)_ The state investment in S8 1029 helps leverJge a totl)j investment of $1.6 bHlion into this proje<:t with other 

matching funds. (Connectivity) 

CALTRANS - CAPITOL CORRIDOR (AMTRAK), OAKLAND TO SAN JOSE 

581029 provides $47 milHon to help construct J scries Df track improvements to permit an incre')se in servkefmquen<:y between 

Oakland dnd San Jose from the current 7 wt:.'ekdtly wund trips to weekday fOund tl'ips.. The state if)v('s!rnent in 58 1029 brings 

the total inves.tm~:mt to $248 miWon, with other matching fund:L {Connc;::tivity) 

CALTRAIN· AOVANCED SIGNALING SYSTEM {POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL) 

5B )029 provides $42 million (:$106 million total induding Bay Area RapJd fransit{BART) and Santa (bra V<lH€-y Transportatkm 

Authority (SCVTA) contributions) tor the design, installation, testing, training and WaHi)nty for an intelligent network of signals, 

sensors, train tracking technology, and computer syst€ms on the CaltrJin Corridor as part of Ca!train's advanced s!gna!ing system. 

This system is required by f('defat reguLation and JllowS trains to travel at higher speed~ wh(:'t1 safi? to do SQ, The state investment 

helps bring the total dollars fot this project to $231 rnlllioo, with other matching funds, {Connectivity) 

CALTRANS - SAN JOAQUIN CORRIDOR {AMTRAK}. MERCED TO LE GRANO 

5B 1029 provides $4 j mH!ion to Arntf<Jk's San Joaquin for construction ofBA miles of double track betwE'en 1.10' Grande and west 

Planada to increase servlce and l'E'du'C(' freight (Qnmcts~ (Conne(tivity) 

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT IAT) - SACRAMENTO INTERMOOAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 

SB 1029 provides S3Q mHHon for the relocation of existing Hght fail tra<k, pdssengN platform and associated systems to connect 

to 3 new SacrarrHm!o lntermodaj Fddllty and future high· speed rilil terminal. rh(~ state lnve'>tment In $8 1029 brings the total 

investment to $60 million, with other matching funds, (Connectivity) 

SANTA CLARA VALLEV TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ISCVTA) - CAlTRAIN 

AOVANCED SIGNALING SYSTEM (POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL) 

5CVTA is contributing S26rnH!ion for the destgn, inst<3J1<ltioo, testing, training ,md WiHrJnty for an inte!ligent network of signals, 

sensors, train tracking technology, dnd comput€r 'tystem"'i on the Cil!train Corridor as part of CaltJ'aln's advanced ">ignaling 

system required, {Connectivity} 
69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 81259.036

CONNecTIVITY & BOOK'IIOS. MAY 2013 _CALIfORNIA '<ZJ H .... ",... •• n """""'ty 

CALTRANS - CAPITOL CORRIDOR IAMTRAK}, SACRAMENTO TO ROSEVillE 

513 1029 provides $16 miWon to Amtrak's Capitol Coftidor station in RosevHle tor iJ sf;rles of improvements designed to increase service 

frequency, reduce freight train conflicts. and accomrnQdatE' freight train growth projects, consists. of n:."!ocation of th(~ f{oscvi!1e station 

<1nd addition of a third track. Thi<; investment brings the total to $28 million. with other matching funds, (Conne-ctlvity) 

ALTAMONT COMMUTER EXPRESS lACE! - STOCKTON PASSENGER TRACK EXTENSION (GAP CLOSURE! 

58 1029 provides the Altamont Commuter EXPH:-S5 (ACE) train with nearly $11 million in high·spe-cd rail connectivity funds to 

e)(h~nd In .existing ACE platform so Amtrak p<lssen~Jt~rs have <l!rN:t a(c\!$.;" to it. The project wi!! ,tlso provide ddditiona! tracK wQr'k 

for a new ACt. maintenance facility. This investment brings the tolal to $25 million, with otht'f ma.tchlog funds. (Connecthdty) 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

SS 1029 provides $500 million for regional rall projects that improve !o('al nNwQrks and faciHtate high·s.peed rill! travel to Southern 

California. Projects wlH be selected by 10Cd1 transit agencies, in conjunction with the- Hlgh"Speed Rajj Authority, ilnd state funding 

will be matched by additional investments to make the totJ! investment in th~s{' projects $1 billion, (Bookend} 

LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATiON AUTHORITY (METRO) - REGIONAL RAIL CONNECTOR 

$13 1029 provides $115 mHHQo to help construct g 2"mHe light raH connection among Metro Gold, Metro mu~ and Metro Exposition 

!i9ht rail transit system') through downtown Los Angeles to provide a one··$~.)t ride from throughout the County to Union Station 

and the high-speed rail system. 5B 1029 helps lew·rage S 1 A bllHon jf) funding for this project (Connectivity) 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY {METROllNKl - NEW OR IMPROVED LOCOMOTIVES/CARS 

58 1029 provides S89 million to repower an(\/or purchase 20 to 30 higher hOr<iepow€'r locomotives, and recondjtlon and improve 

pdssenger cars. The state investment of S69 million wiH hE.'!p leverage a totallnvestment of $203 million for this purpose" MetroHnk also 

received approximately $35 mimOD for advanced signrlling wstem work from Proposition 1 A in previous appropriations, (Connectivity) 

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (TROLLEY) - BLUE LINE LIGHT RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

SB 1029 provldes $58 million to H::habHitate grade (Xo'.,;,lnas, track, and switches and ties, add track work: and signaling, and raise 

platforms to. accommodilte low floor vehicles to. uHow for reduced headway and improved reliability, This investment helps bring 

a total investment of $1 S2 mH!ion to update and modern!l€' San mE'go':; BluE' Une lJght rail system, {Connectivity} 

SAN otEGO NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (COASTER}- AOVANCED SIGNAliNG SYSTEM 

(POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL) 

58 1029 adds $73 million to a previously approptlJted S 1 0.5 million of Proposition lA funds to a Positive Train Contro.l project for the 

North County Trar\"s!t Dls.trict in the San Diego AH~a< The funds are to bulld dO ddvan<;ed :.lgnallng system to track the location of trains 

in order to avoid collisions. The state investment will help bring the total !nve~tment in this project t1..1 $60 millioo. (Connectivity) 

~ Regional 

Transit 
70 


Insert offset folio 37 here 81259.037

STATEWIDE RAIl. MODeRNIZATION 

EARLY lNVESTMENTS/SiilTEW!ilE B£!4EflTS 

Early 

In"".tlllent 

InC.ltrain 

Corridor 

San Luis 

Obispo 

Amtrak 

SurfUner 

Service 

Initial Opi!"rating Section (10S1 

Northern California 1h11I1.w s".vI,e 

(San JoaquinICapitulfAC£} , 

lOS· First Construction 

HSR 

Early Priority • 

C!oseGapto 

LA8asin 

II Eddy Irwestment in Caltrajn and MHmlink Corridors 

BaytQ Basin 

.. Phas,," i Blended 

Pha~2: 

Northern Cilhfornia Unified Sefvi(e 

(San Joaquin/Capitol/ACE) 
71 


Insert offset folio 38 here 81259.038

Q),nmmittee un @runsvnrtutiun nnb 3lnfrustruaure 

11t.§. ]luuse uf iIlepresentati Uta 

l!Iill~l)unttr 

Qlljairmlln 

IIUJl4ington. l!I(!t <!0515 

Cnristopller P. DNtf/lOm, Staff f)!mct()f 

Dan Richard 

Chairman of the Board 

California High Speed Rail Authority 

770 L St, Suite 800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dear Mr. Richard: 

July 9,2013 

Nita ill. iRnljall, 3HJ 

lRankill9 l3Iltmhtr 

Jnme1J H. Zoia, D~IIlQCl'atSt.'\rfDi)"{'ctor 

Thank you for your testimony before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials on May 28, 2013 concerning "Oversight of California High Speed Rail." 

am pleased you appeared and testified on behalf of the California High Speed Rail Authority. 

The Subcommittee gained valuable insight from the information you provided at the hearing. 

Enclosed please find additional questions for written responses for the record. The 

Subcommittee appreciates your written responses no later than July 26, 2013. Please provide an 

electronic version of your response via email to 1 2 I 1 

If you have any questions please contact '!II! •••• 111.1 .... %I!;of the Subcommittee at 

• r. 

Enclosures 
72 


Insert offset folio 39 here 81259.039

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on "Oversight of California High Speed Rail" 

May 28,2013 

Questions for the Record 

Questions from Rep. Denham: 

1. How many people will be displaced from their homes to build the initial construction 

segment? 

2. How many businesses will be displaced to build the initial construction segment? 

3. Please provide to the committee the precise route of the entire Initial Operating Segment, 

detailed down to the parcel of land. 

2 
73 


Insert offset folio 40 here 81259.040

130Mt) MEMtlEFIS 

Dan Ri<hcnd 

Thomas Rkhards. 

jim Hartn~tt 

Patrick 

W. Henninq. Sr. 

Katherine 

Perez·Estolano 

Mkhael Rossi 

lynn S(henk 

Thomas 1. Umberg 

JeffMora!~s 

~ CALIFORNIA 

'qI High-Speed Rail Authority 

July 26, 20 I 3 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and lIazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

1730 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 205 I 5 

Dear Chairman Denham: 

Thank you for your letter dated July 9, 2013 and for the opportunity to restate this information for 

the record. Please find responses to the Subcommittees questions below. 

1. How many people will be displaced/i'om their homes to build the initial construclion segment: 

2. How many businesses will be displaced to build the initial constructhm segment? 

As was discussed at the hearing on May 28th (see transcript p. 53-55, lines 1117-1150), the 

environmental review process requires a non-judgmental review of appropriate alternative routes. 

each of which must be analyzed to determine impacts and appropriate mitigation. 

Accordingly, it is not permissible for the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) to 

assume, at this point, that it knows the precise alignment for sections beyond the Merced to 

Fresno project section, for which the environmental review process hac.; been completed. Once 

the Authority and the federal agencies certify the environmental documents for other sections 

under NEPA and any associated state-level environmental processes, the precise impacts and 

mitigation measures for those project sections will be known. At that point, we would be able to 

provide you with the information requested in your letter. 

To be clear, there are two separate environmental reviews covering the 130-mile Central Valley 

portion of the Initial Operating Segment (lOS). As mentioned above, the northern project 

section of the route, from Merced to Fresno, has been certified by the Authority, and the federal 

Environmental Impact Statement has been certified by the Federal Railroad Administration and 

accepted by the Surface Transportation Board. The Authority has already provided the 

Subcommittee with precise information on the parcels affected by the proposed construction of 

the project section of the lOS covered by that environmental document. We have again attached 

the affected parcel list for the Merced to Fresno project section to this letter, for your records. 

However, the southern project section of the Central Valley portion of the lOS, from Fresno to 

Bakersfield, is the subject of an ongoing environmental review process, with multiple potential 

variations of route alignments. Therefore, in accordance with federal law, it is currently 

impossible to answer the Subcommittee's question as to the potential impacts on residences and 

businesses along the Fresno to Bakersfield project section, or to provide precise lists of affected 

770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814· T: (916) 324·1541· F; (916) 322·0827· www.hsr.ca.gov 
74 


Insert offset folio 41 here 81259.041

parcels and how they will be impacted, since those issues arc still the subject of analysis, review, and 

potential change. 

3. Please provide the commiltee the precise route qf the entire Initial Operating SeRment. detailed down 

to the parcel a/land. 

For the same reason, the parcel level impacts of the entire lOS, from Merced to the San Fernando Valley, 

cannot be ascertained at this time, since segments of that entire line will be subject to sequential 

environmental reviews. 

As was the case with the final document describing the Merced to Fresno project section environmental 

clearance, once future environmental review documents have been finalized and legally adopted by the 

Authority and the federal oversight agencies, we can promptly provide the parcel by parcel information at 

the request of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for your correspondence, and for the opportunity to reinforce the Authority's clarity on this 

subj ect for the record. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Richard 

Chair 

Board of Directors 

Enclosure 

2 
75 


Insert offset folio 42 here 81259.042

Attachment A 

HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY (2665) 

INITIAL OPERATING SEGMENT, SECTION 1 

MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES 

AVENUE 17-AVENUE 7 Parcel Number 

Pa reel Number 035-162-036 

037-030-006 035-162-037 

037-030-007 035-171-001 

037-030-008 035-171-011 

037-030-012 035-171-012 

037-030-013 035-171-003 

037-030-016 035-171-013 

037-060-016 035-171-005 

037-060-017 035-211-006 

037-060-018 035-212-002 

037-060-021 035-232-002 

037-060-022 035-232-003 

037-111-023 034-190-031 

037-111-024 034-210-045 

037-111-025 034-210-049 

037-111-032 034-210-047 

037-111-033 047-070-013 

037-112-003 047 -070-014 

037-112-004 047-070-007 

035-030-015 047-080-001 

035-030-003 047-130-026 

035-030-016 047-130-016 

035-030-017 047-130-027 

035-091-016 047-130-028 

035-092-001 047-130-029 

035-092-002 047-130-030 

035-092-010 047-240-006 

035-092-009 047-240-007 

035-092-008 047-240-004 

035-092-012 047-240-003 

035-092-011 047-320-009 

035-092-013 047-320-010 

BNSF Pa reel Between 035- 047-320-005 

092-013 AND 035-171-011 047-320-004 

035-102-030 047-330-005 

035-102-031 048-010-008 

035-102-018 048-070-009 

035-102-040 048-080-001 

035-102-020 048-080-003 

035-162-003 048-080-004 

035-162-026 048-190-011 

035-162-032 048-190-028 

035-162-025 048-190-029 

035-162-024 043-190-014 

035-162-034 048-200-002 

035-162-035 048-200-003 

-10- SPWB January 14, 2013 la-Day Notice 

Pa reel Number 

048-200-008 

048-200-006 

AVENUE7TO SR-41 

048-200-007 

048-270-009 

048-270-008 

504-010-01 

504-130-22 

504-130-20 

504-130-08 

504-010-15 

504-010-16 

504-050-34 

504-070-33 

504-070-41 

504-070-51 

504-070-52 

504-070-39 

504-106-02 

504-106-04 

504-106-05 

504-060-73 

504-060-71 

504-060-70 

504-060-75 

504-140-11 

504-091-02 

504-091-03 

504-091-04 

504-080-47 

504-080-66 

504-080-67 

504-080-32 

504-080-39 

504-080-38 

504-080-37 

458-133-15 

458-240-30 

458-010-05 

458-240-31 

458-240-33 

458-240-32 

458-240-10 

458-2S0-10 

458-010-19 

458-250-07 
76 


Insert offset folio 43 here 81259.043

Parcel Number Parcel Number Pa reel Number 

458-250-08 508-110-07 449-161-08 

458-010-17 508-110-08 449-161-04 

458-250-37 508-110-09 449-161-05 

465-020-23 508-110-48 449-180-08 

465-020-13 508-130-01 449-180-09 

465-020-22 510-050-03 449-180-10 

465-030-18 510-050-04 450-280-01 

465-030-16 510-050·30 450-280-02 

504·080-33 510-050·31 450-280-03 

504-080-69 510-050-39 450-280-11 

504·080-74 510-050·25 450-280-12 

504-080-71 510-050-26 450-280-34 

504-080-14 510-060-32 450-280-31 

504-080-46 510-060-33 465-040-23 

505-080-25 510-070-53 465-040-06 

505-080-16 510-070-62 465-040-05 

505-080-21 510-070-63 465-040-31 

505-080·22 510-090-45 465-040-04 

508-020-04 510-090-46 465-040-03 

508··020-01 510-090-43 465-040-36 

508-020-10 510-090-40 465-040-22 

508-020-11 510·460-05 465-040-21 

508-020-12 510-460-16 467-030-22 

508-020-13 510-460-15 467-030-23 

508-020-14 510~460-14 467-030-19 

508-020-15 510-100-14 467-030-25 

508-020-16 510-100-12 467-061-15 

508-020-17 510-470-0X 467-062-11 

508-020-21 510-470-01 467-062-03 

508-020-23 510-470-02 467-030-17 

508-020-25 510-470-03 467-030-04 

508-030-12 510·470-04 467-030-32 

508-101-18 510-470-05 467-063-18 

508-101-19 510-470-10 467-063-19 

508-102-04 510-470-06 467-063-37 

508-102-01 510-470-07 467-030·29 

508-102-02 510-470-08 467-030-37 

508-102-03 510-470-09 467-030-38 

508-102-35 510-470-11 467-030-03 

508-102-07 510-470-12 467-040-12 

508-102-08 442-122-02 467-040-07 

508-102-10 442-122-15 467-040-06 

508-102-09 442-122-03 467040-05 

508-110-45 442-122-36 467-040-21 

508-110-46 442-122-05 467-040-04 

508-110-06 449-161-02 467-050-24 

-11-

SPWBJanuary 14, 201310-Day Notice 
77 


Insert offset folio 44 here 81259.044

Parcel Number Parcel Number 

467-050-13 450-154-08 

467-081-19 450-155-18 

467-081-08 450-155-17 

467-081-07 450-155-16 

467-081-06 450-155-15 

467-081-05 450-271-12 

467-050-28 450-272-28 

467-082-12 450-272-27 

467-082-01 450-272-14 

467-050-23 450-272-13 

504-010-20 450-272-12 

504-010-21 450-273-26 

504-080-44 450-273-13 

504-080-08 450-273-12 

504-080-09 459-023-55 

506-130-28 459-023-56 

506-130-21 459-023-18 

508-120-18 459-023-59 

509-050-05 459-023-51 

510-050-01 508-110-13 

510-050-02 508-110-10 

508-010-07 508-110~11 

510-050-05 

509-050-06 508-110-14 

509-080-11 458-010-20 

509-080-13 459-111-14 

509-080-45 458-250-15 

510-050-06 458-250-25 

442-122-37 458-250-27 

442-122-33 458-250-09 

442-122-34 458-250-23 

442-122-35 458-250-24 

449-020-16 458-240-25 

442-122-24 504-010-09 

467-030-34 

442-122-22 467-071-01 

442-123-05 467-071-02 

442-123-03 

449-162-01 

449-162-02 

449-162-03 

449-162-04 

449-162-05 

449-162-20 

450-280-08 

450-154-09 

-12- SPWB January 14, 201310-Day Notice 
78 


Insert offset folio 45 here 81259.045

Kole Upton Written Testimony 

Opening Comment 

Albert Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different 

results." 

As one of the affected folks who has the misfortune to live and farm in the Wye' portion of the 

California High Speed Rail Project, I am now experiencing the third attempt by the California High Speed 

Rail Authority (CHSRA) and its consulting engineers to develop a route in the 'Wye' area. 

The first attempt was the infamous A3 route which traveled through 24 miles of farm land in Merced 

and Madera counties, usually at an angle. After virtually unanimous opposition, the CHSR Board 

abandoned the route in March of 2010. 

In June of 2010 at a joint Technical Committee of public agencies in Merced and Madera counties and 

CHSRA with its consulting engineers, the public agencies provided input that the 'Wye' route should be 

SOUTH of the City of Chowchilla. Remarkably, the consulting engineers for the Merced to Fresno section 

and CHSRA announced in July of 2010 that the 'Wye' route would be NORTH of Chowchilla. They called 

the route the West Chowchilla Design Option (WCDO). In addition, the WCDO was basically the 

northern portion of Route A3 which had been rejected by the CHSR Board. 

Other folks in the 'Wye' area had similar experiences with the Authority involving Avenues 21 and 24, 

and Route Al during this time frame. This led to the formation of the group, Preserve Our Heritage 

(POH). Over the past several years, we have had many interactions with the Authority and its 

representatives. One of the POH suggestions adopted by the Authority involves studying the use of 

Highway 152 as a possible East-West route through the 'Wye', and a North-South route east of the city 

of Chowchilla. To its credit, the Authority listened in this case, and these options are now two of the 

four (4) options for the 'Wye'. 

Regrettably, however, the Authority continues the study of Ave. 21 as an East-West option as well as 

Road 13 as a North-South option through the 'Wye'. This is important because it represents the 

Authority ignoring years of written and verbal input from local public agencies and private individuals 

demonstrating virtually unanimous opposition to these options. These letters, resolutions, and 

comments are part of the public record for this project. 

In December of 2011, consulting engineers for the Merced to Fresno section and the Authority 

announced their recommendation for a 'Preferred Route'. This route was called the 'Hybrid Route'. In 

the 'Wye' area, it included a slight modification of the WCDO. Instead of going down Road 13, it now 

purported to go down Road 12 & K However, such a road does NOT exist. 
79 


Insert offset folio 46 here 81259.046

Page-2- Upton 

Several months later, the CSHR Board adopted the recommendation. However, it excised out the 

'Wye' portion ofthe Merced to Fresno section and delayed its implementation until a another study 

could be done, Further, it assigned the study to the consulting engineers from the Merced to San Jose 

section, Since that time, PDH has again coordinated and met many times with Authority representatives 

in an effort to come up with route options that are compatible with the project's goals and our existing 

infrastructure, 

After a about a year, it appears that the "Wye' route decision has come down to four options with 

the Authority continuing to interact with local citizens and their public and private organizations, The 

results of the recent open houses in the Chowchilla area are consistent with the historical input on the 

'Wye', Clearly, the the preferred option should be some permutation of the Highway 152 and Road 18 

options, However, it is imperative that the Authority do the necessary 'tweaking' of the Road 18 option 

to minimize the effects on those affected, 

If the Authority again tries to inflict Road 13 and/or Ave, 21 on this area as the Preferred 'Wye' 

Alternative, then it should expect the same vigorous and uncompromising reaction as occurred the last 

two times, If one rejects Mr, Einstein's thesis for the Authority's action, then it must be assumed that 

the Authority has never had any intention of listening to local input on this issue, 

Authority Board, Staff, and Consultants 

The key to the successful implementation of this project is the people representing the Authority and 

their work. One of the elements necessary for success is working with local interests who are affected 

by the proposed routes, To do this effectively, people representing the Authority have to deal with 

locals with integrity, respect, and competence, Until the last several months, Authority.personnel have 

failed in all of these areas, 

November 2009 - June 2012 

My involvement in this situation started in November of 2009 when I received written notification 

that our farm was being considered as part of route A3. We were asked to allow various technical 

experts on the land to do studies. We refused in that the implementing language for the project and 

bond indicated that existing corridors should be used and the effects on agricultural land should be 

minimized. Both of these stipulations were violated with the proposed route through our property, 
80 


Insert offset folio 47 here 81259.047

Page-3- Upton 

A group of us traveled to the next Authority board meeting in Sacramento in December of 2009, 

After my verbal testimony, the Chairman, Curt Pringle, suggested I roll up my sleeves and work with the 

Authority to devise appropriate routes, I thought that was a reasona ble suggestion, In addition to 

attending open houses and providing written input, I volunteered to be on the Technical Committees of 

Merced and Madera counties. As an elected official of water districts in the two counties, I was eligible, 

Previously, I have referred to the decision concerning the WCDO and the fact that it was in direct 

opposion to the recommendation of the Technical'Committees. When I challenged one ofthe 

consultants in charge as to how the process could be said to have integrity when such a decision was 

made? He said the City of Chowchilla wanted it. A quick cell phone call to the Mayor of Chowchilla 

exposed that canard. Then, it was alleged that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) wanted it, A 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was made to the FRA. After a delay of about a year, the 

reply indicated the FRA had nothing to do with the selection of the WCDO, 

During the time of August 2010 to December of 2011, POH interacted with the Authority on many 

occasions and proposed that the Authority study Highway 152 and an East of Chowchilla option for the 

North-South and East-West 'Wye' connections. In any event, we and others in the area were clear that 

the WCDO was unacceptable as a North-South option. 

We were shocked and angry when in December 2011 consulting engineers and Authority staff 

presented their Preferred Route for the North-South option in the 'Wye', However, instead of now 

going along Road 13, they now altered it to go along Road 12 & " which was even more of an 

abomination than the Road 13 option, They did not select a preferred option for East-West. Frankly, 

some of us interpreted this 'Hybrid Route' selection as an 'in your face' approach to demonstrate the 

power of the Authority. 

This would be consistent with a statement made early on by one of the consulting engineers. In a 

meeting with farm appraisers, he indicated that the Authority was a 'super agency'. It had both a 

federal and a state mandate, and it would go where it wanted, Further, that individual businesses or 

farmers had no say. During this time period, I would certainly not dispute his assertion. 

Later in the spring of 2012, to its credit, the CHSR Board removed the 'Wye' portion from the 

immediate construction package for the Merced to Fresno section, and assigned it to the Merced to San 

Jose group for further study. 

June 2012 present 

Discussions began in June 2012 between Authority staff, Merced to San Jose section consultants, and 

persons and organizations who would be affected by the 'Wye' route. The Merced to San Jose 

consultants seemed to have a more cooperotive and interactive approach with local representatives. 
81 


Insert offset folio 48 here 81259.048

Page-4- Upton 

The situation improved dramatically after Diana Gomez, the new Regional Director for the Central 

Valley became involved later in the year. Ms. Gomez has roots in the San Joaquin Valley and has an 

understanding of culture and history of the area. 

She took the time to meet with my employees and recognized that the Road 13 route would cause a 

loss of jobs in agriculture. On my farm which is equipment intensive, most of the employees own their 

houses, have health benefits, and have worked on this farm for over 20 years. Many of their children 

have graduated or attend colleges. In fact, one of them attends CSU Stanislaus and participated in the 

meeting. 

The process has continued to reduce the number of possible routes for consideration. On the bright 

side, Highway 152 and Road 18 made the cut. Unfortunately, Road 13 and Ave. 21 were also included 

among the four finalists for consideration as the 'Preferred route'. 

Among the possible routes eliminated was the Road 11 route. It was eliminated by someone in the 

federal government. This has happened before, and there is apparently no way to challenge either the 

criteria used, or the result itself. 

The bottom line here is that despite CHSRA having improved its outreach and integrity when dealing 

with locals, it will all be moot if CHSRA decides on Road 13 and/or Ave. 21. 

Jobs 

Jobs in agriculture have a geomNric factor in that every job in agriculture is multiplied several times 

as the product moves from the farm to the consumer. For instance, I grow Corn Nuts. The product 

leaves my farm, is stored in Firebaugh, and then sent to the Kraft plant in Fresno for distribution around 

the world. 

Ms. Gomez·seems to get the concept that the High Speed Rail project should be compatible with our 

existing infrastructure. Rather than replacing good agriculturally related jobs with High Speed Rail jobs, 

we should try to have both. 

Upton Wildlife Retreat 

The Road 13 option also threatens the wildlife sanctuary on our property. This was established over 

40 years ago, and the 14 acres is the home for many different species. The local raptor center returns 

injured raptors to the wild by first releasing them in to this habitat. The 'Hybrid Route' announced in 

December of 2011 bisected the habitat and would have totally destroyed it. 

The latest Road 13 option would come within 600 to 800 feet of the retreat. This distance is well 

within the normal hunting radius of the species living in this habitat. Obviously, it will also have a 

devastating effect on the retreat. 
82 


Insert offset folio 49 here 81259.049

Page-5- Upton 

Attached is my submission to the Surface Transportation Board with PICTURES of the wildlife in the 

retreat. 

Conclusion 

Most of the problems associated with this project in this area were self-inflicted by the Authority in 

the years 2009 until the spring of 2012. Now, it has the opportunity to make a decision that can be 

supported by the vast majority of the citizens affected by the 'Wye'. The selection of Highway 152 and 

Road 18 as the 'Preferred Route' for the 'Wye' is the obvious choice. 
83 


Insert offset folio 50 here 81259.050

Findley M. upton Family Trust 

9509 Cross Road 

PO Box506 

Chowchilla, CA. 93610 

Ms. C\lnthla Brown 

Chief, SettlOn of Administration 

Office of Proceedlnas 

Surface Transportation Board (STB) 

39S E Street, S.W. 

Washington, D C. 20423'()111 

234060 

ENTERED 

Office of Proceedings 

April 11, 2013 

Part of Public Record 

ApnllO, 2013 

Re: california Hlsh Speed Rail Project, Your Reference Number- FD3S724 

Dear Ms Brown 

Enclosed with this letter are pictures of some of the many mqnlflcent creatures (primarily birds) whose 

home IS a unique environmental retreat on our property This retreat Is threatened with destruction by 

the california Hl8h Speed Rail Project. This retreat has been In ellistence for oyer 40 years. It was 

planted With every type of tree, and has not been farmed during that time. The local raptor center has 

utilized our retreat to release Injured raptors once they are nursed back to health 

CUrrently, the C8hfornNl Hlllh Speed Rail Proj8ct has a 'preferred route' btsectlll8 thll retreat Although 

the cntena for the Project recommends usl .. existing transportatIOn corndors and avoldlnllmpacts of 

thIS nature, the consulting engineers dl!Yl5l!d a route along a so called road 12 & " that does NOT exist 

It destroys thiS unique habitat along WIth devastating maRy farms along this fantasy road Resrettably, 

the CHSRA Board adopted this 'preferred route'ln Apnl of 2012 
84 


Insert offset folio 51 here 81259.051

-2- upton 

Recently, the CHSRA has chal1ll!d consultllll enslneelS from this area, and IS In the process of HlectJns 

new altematrves Unfortunately, Dne of the5e alternatives Indudes a route Qlrrently prosrammed to 

come within 600 to 800 feet of the retreat. Since the huntlns radiUS and other ectivltll!S of some of the 

species such as "lIwks extend well beyond 600 to 800 feet. It is obvious that a 220 MPH train will not be 

compatible with this retreat 

Despite our continued InVOlvement In the environmental process and the 'open hoUH' discussions with 

CHSRA repreHntattves, we do not feel our Iqlhmate concerns have been addreSHd. We stransly ulJe 

you to review the califorma hqjh Speed Rln Project and NOT srant an exemption from STB overslsht. 

PlelH Indude us In Iny notices concemlns this situation. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Kale Upton, Trustee, 

Findley M. Upton Family Trust 

Endosec:l: UptOn Wildlife Retreat PICtures 
85 


Insert offset folio 52 here 81259.052

Upton Wildlife Retreat 

All pictures laken at the retreat or on the ranch's property where the retreat is located. Chowchill .. CA 

14 Acres of land set aside over 40 years ago for wildlife to thrive in a 

safe and unbothered environment. 

This photograph was taken over 30 years ago of a nest found with 3 

young Red Tail Hawks. Having 3 babies is not common for Red Tails. Red 

Tail Hawk's clutch size depends almost exclusively on the availability of 

food in the adult's habitat. Red Tails mate for life and return to the same 

nest each season. 
86 


Insert offset folio 53 here 81259.053

Contents 

Red Tall Hawk female w/baby .......................................................................... 1 

3 boby Red Tnilllawks 

Red Toililowk female wi J fledglings Slandmg on nest •• .... •• ....... ... .. ...... 2 

2 Immature Cooper's Hawks 

Red Shoulders ......... .. ...................................................................................... .3 

RI.'CI Shoulder Nesting 

Red Taililowk pair ncsling .................................................................................... .4 

Female Grealilom Owl N.:.sling 

Group ur lIawks I!IIlh"'red on III", ground..... • ....... .. • • .. ......... . .................. 5 

(Red TOil, SwslJlSOn & ~·enuginou.~ Ilawb) 

Swomson Hawk Nesting ...... 

Pair or Swainson bobics 

.......................................... 6 

Bam Owls ................................................................................................................ 7 

IJaby Dam Owls 

Burrowing Owl.. . • .• • ... ...................... . ..... .. .......... It 

Burrowing Owl & Durrow 

Pair or While Tad Kile. .......... •• . ................................................. 9 

Merlin Falcon 

Sharp Shinned 1I0wks ............................................................................... 10 

Osprey ...................................................................................................... II 

Northam Ilarriers 

King Fishcrs ........................................................................................................... 12 

PIed-billed Grebe female wllh baby ......... .. .................... 13 

Pied-billed Grebe baby 

Nlshlllemn .................................................................................... 14 

Double Crcslod Cormomnl 

Female Duck willi babies. • ................................................... __ ........... IS 

MeJlIIIllSIn 

Gl'CIlIIlleron.................... .. . ............................................................. 16 

Goldeneye 

Sandhill Cmncs. .. ............................................................ , ................... 17 

While Faced IbIS 
87 


Insert offset folio 54 here 81259.054

Female Red 

Fcwdays 
88 


Insert offset folio 55 here 81259.055

FeMale Red to leave the nesl 

immalU~ 
89 


Insert offset folio 56 here 81259.056

Male aml Female Red 

!led 
90 


Insert offset folio 57 here 81259.057

Male lind Female Red 

Fel1ll!le Greal !Iorn Owl 4 
91 


Insert offset folio 58 here 81259.058

Mass mix of Red SWllinsot1 lIawks harvest IIcld 

Mass sO!ll<!lime~ 50· IOn in numbers 
92 


Insert offset folio 59 here 81259.059
93 


Insert offset folio 60 here 81259.060

I'lIirofBarn 

7 
94 


Insert offset folio 61 here 81259.061
95 


Insert offset folio 62 here 81259.062

llnd Ft'l!Iale While Tailed Kites 

Merlin- Smallest 
96 


Insert offset folio 63 here 81259.063

FCU111lc Sharp Shinned II11Wk· Ont~ 

Male Shinned Ihlwk 10 
97 


Insert offset folio 64 here 81259.064

Osprey 

Mnle Northern I hmi..:r 

II 
98 


Insert offset folio 65 here 81259.065

Male 12 
99 


Insert offset folio 66 here 81259.066

Female Pied-hilled Grehe with 

Pied-hilled Grebe bally 
100 


Insert offset folio 67 here 81259.067

Adtlll Heron 

Dou!>le 14 
101 


Insert offset folio 68 here 81259.068
102 


Insert offset folio 69 here 81259.069

GreCll Hemn 
103 


Insert offset folio 70 here 81259.070

Sandhill Cranes 

While Ihis 7 
104 


Insert offset folio 71 here 81259.071

May 28, 2013 

DOUG VERBOON 

,)urCf\'isl1f 

Di~tn(t ) 

The Honorable Jeff Denham, Chairman 

Committee On Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Re: Testimony of Doug Verboon, Chairman, Kings County Board of Supervisors 

Good morning, 

My name is Doug Verboon. I serve as Chairman of the Kings County Board of Supervisors. I 

would like to thank Chairman Denham and the Subcommittee members for the opportunity to 

provide testimony regarding Oversight of California High Speed Rail. 

Since we last testified in 20 II, the situation has worsened. It has devolved into a project 

Proposition IA voters would not recognize. 

We have chronicled unaddressed concerns in vol urnes of correspondence. 

The project ignores environmental precedent in favor of political posturing. 

The County was completely excluded during the corridor refinement process. 

This exclusion caused the Authority to realize "too late" that it chose one of the most wellplanned, completely protected and ag-sustaining areas in California to anoint the "spine" of the 

project. 

It has steadfastly ignored Kings County ever since, essentially stating it is too late. 

Kings County can't possibly be the least environmentally damaging project alternative, when 

only 20 miles east Highways 99 and 198 converge with the Visalia Airport. 

Visalia has tirelessly lobbied to have the Authority open its eyes and receive this perfect gift. 
105 


Insert offset folio 72 here 81259.072

The 2012 Business Plan may shave dollars, at least on paper, but also robs the bond money, 

bestows it on conventional commuter rail, and blends the project into one that Prop. I A voters 

would not recognize. 

68 billion dollars would allegcdly build phase one, plus 32 billion to electrify that 100 miles; and 

billions more to complete phase two. 

Phase one will shift Amtrak and bypass clUes whose people and economies have become 

dependent on them, including Hanford and Corcoran in Kings County. 

The result is a project that: 

Will not be electrified. 

Will be standard diesel. 

Will be subsidized. 

Will compete with conventional passengcr and freight service. 

Will travel at 79 mph - not the 200 plus indicated in Prop. I A. 

Will not provide a non-stop L.A. to San Francisco Prop. IA required trip. 

Will not be "green", but it will seek cap-and-trade money claiming it is. 

Will rely on speCUlative funding sources. 

Will not have additional Federal money. 

Will not entice venture capital. 

Will not have independent utility. 

Will clog the cash-strapped courts with condemnation cases. 

Will be politically expedient for some, but at the cost of the environment, environmental justice 

and Prop. I A. 

The project has no construction permit, but claims it will start construction in July ... of2013. 

It does not have ARRA -required agreements with BNSF or Union Pacific. 

It does not have the necessary environmental permits to complete even the 29 mile initial 

construction segment, let alone drift into the Fresno to Bakersfield segment that has yet to be 

certified. 

2 
106 


Insert offset folio 73 here 81259.073

Even so, the Authority certified to the Legislature that it will, in the future, comply with required 

environmental thresholds, even though Prop. 1 A requires all environmental certifications be 

obtained, for Merced to Palmdale, before bond approval. 

Senator Rosenthal recently asked Chairman Richard if, "for all this money, ... we [are] going to 

get genuine high speed rail?". He said "no, but you are going to get a lot." Hmmmmm. 

If they cannot comply with Prop. lA, they must stop. The federal funding agreement requires 

compliance with state law. 

On January 3, 2012, the Prop. lA-commissioned Peer Group reported to the State Legislature 

"We cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the (high-speed rail) without credible 

sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize 

the independent utility and value to the state, and without the appropriate management resources, 

represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California." 

High speed rail in California, as defined in Prop. lA, is a worthy objective and one that my 

County initially supported, so long as it followed existing transportation corridors. 

It has devolved to a project voters would not recognize and, given the truth, the Governor would 

probably decline to endorse. 

This should eoncern the Authority'S federal partner, the Federal Railroad Administration. 

This project needs more oversight, more accountability, more common sense, and less antics. 

In reflecting on it's implementation, I am reminded of the children's story of the Three Little 

Pigs and the consequences of building a house of straw. 

There is so much more to say, but I will close with an invitation to meet and discuss any 

questions you may have and offer to provide you with all the information we have gathered to 

date. 

Doug Verboon, Chairman 

Kings County Board of Supervisors 

H:lHigh Speed Rail/Congressional TestimonyNerboon Testimony to Subcommittee 5-28-\3 at 

1:25 am 

3 
107 


Insert offset folio 74 here 81259.074

Testimony of Anja Raudabaugh, Executive Director, Madera County Farm Bureau 

u.s. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on 

Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

"Oversight of the California High Speed Rail" 

May 28, 2013 

The Madera County Farm Bureau appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of its 

1,200 members in Madera County. The Farm Bureau is a 501 c (3), non-profit entity, that works to 

provide agricultural advocacy for Madera County farmers, growers, ranchers, and property owners. 

Madera County ranks 10" in the State for gross agricultural production value and 4th in the world for the 

production of specialty crop commodities. Agriculture and ag-related businesses account for over 76% 

of Madera county's employed, and also represents nearly 67% of Madera County's GOP. The Farm 

Bureau represents approximately 95% of all agricultural interests in Madera County. 

The California High Speed Train Project (Project) has a lengthy history in Madera County, dating back to 

2009, when the first round of design options was presented to the public. These design options included 

a variety of alignments that deviated significantly from major transportation routes crossing agricultural 

lands and prime farm lands, ultimately causing what now appears to be an insurmountable level of 

mistrust, suspicion, and anger towards the project by the agrarian community. The final alignment 

selection through Madera County in May of 2012 yielded an unprecedented level of agricultural 

property acquisition, and irreparable damages to agricultural operations in Madera County. The final 

alignment from Merced to Fresno, which leaves State Route 99 by as much as five miles to the east in 

Madera County, bifurcates, dissects, and severs approximately 500 different ag operations. 413 of those 

affected are in Madera County. The result -although yet to be defined -is certain to be a loss of 

businesses, revenue, jobs, and ultimately -agriculturally developed land. 

The Project's final alignment in Madera County, referred to as the Hybrid Alignment, is a path between 

the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail Road. The California 

High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) made the decision in late 2011 to remove from analysis the area 

surrounding Chowchilla (from approximately the Chowchilla River to Avenue 17), therefore NEPA and 

CEQA analyses were only performed from Avenue 17 south to the San Joaquin River. The Authority 

estimated at the time of the EIR/EIS, that approximately 1,256 agricultural acres would be removed 

from production in Madera County (another 250 acres in Merced County) as a result of the project. 

These figures did not account for land that would be lost due to severed ag parcels or lost agri-business 

resulting from economic unviability as a result of the alignment bisecting properties. These figures were 

also based on a 15% project design standard -as stated in the Draft EIR/EIS'

, and did not account for 

project adjustments required for a higher level design completion package. The Farm Bureau has long 

1 CHSRA's Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement 2011 pp.lS7 
108 


Insert offset folio 75 here 81259.075

contended that the estimate of affected land by the Authority is inaccurate and the reflective mitigation 

provided is not adequate. 

The Madera County Farm Bureau, the Merced County Farm Bureau, Preserve Our Heritage, the 

Chowchilla Water District, and the Fagundes Brothers Dairy entities filed a lawsuit against the Authority, 

claiming statutory violations under CEQA and the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act2

• A day before the 

litigation was scheduled to be heard in Sacramento Superior Court, the Petitioner parties agreed to a 

settlement with the Authority3. 

The Settlement agreement is comprehensive and includes major facets associated with the right-of·way 

and land acqUisition processes. It also includes additional direct mitigation acreage related to indirect 

effects of the project, in the form of an agricultural buffer running the length of the tracks, 25 feet wide 

on either side throughout the Valley. The settlement also provided for a comprehensive agricultural land 

preservation program, or Ag Land Mitigation Fund, which is designed to set aside acreage to offset 

impacts to agricultural properties from the Project. 

Moving forward into the future, the question of how smoothly the land acquisition process will proceed 

remains unanswered. The Authority must begin by honoring its commitments in the Settlement 

Agreement and ensuring that land owners are given the best possible options of first maintaining their 

agricultural operations viability and then -and only then -receiving just compensation for the impacts 

the Project will cause. Approximately 80% of the affected landowners along the Initial Construction 

Segment (Construction Package 1, Phase 1a) are Farm Bureau members'. To date, none of these 

landowners have expressed a willing desire to sell. The situation is most likely going to be one in which 

a majority of these property owners are going to be unwilling sellers. Given the average price of fa rm 

ground in Madera County is $25,800 per acre', the Farm Bureau is concerned that the allocation of costs 

associated with Authority's 2012 Business Plan6 are substantially lower than what will be required. The 

Farm Bureau would like to ensure that there is an adequate funding source to purchase these properties 

well BEFORE any appraisal is finalized and any offers are made. Our members are already suffering from 

an inability to obtain agricultural operating loans7 simply by being in the path of the Project's 

alignment'-

Unfortunately, no amount of money or offsite mitigation can replace a farmstead that has been in a 

family for generations. The Farm Bureau is alarmed that this project may cause more irreparable harm 

before it can be completed. 

2 Petitioners Opening Brief 2013 and Reply Brief 2013 

3 Petitioners Settlement Agreement 2013 

4 Fresno to Bakersfield DEIR/EIS Comment Letter by Merced and Madera Farm Bureaus, 2013 

5 Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values, California & Nevada, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural 

Appraisers, 2013, pp. 46 

, CHSRA 2012 Business Plan pp.3-S 

7 Hanna Declaration Letter, October 2012 

8 Petitioner's Preliminary Injunction Brief 2012 
109 


Insert offset folio 76 here 81259.076

Footnote 2: Petitioners Opening Brief 2013 
110 


Insert offset folio 77 here 81259.077

2 

3 

4 

5 

BARRY H. EPSTEIN #104402 

PAUL S. KlBEL #168454 

JASON W. HOLDER #232402 

FITZGERALD ABBOTT & BEARDSLEY LLP 

1221 Broadway, 21 st Floor 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: 510- 451-3300 

Facsimile: 510-451-1527 

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 

(GOVERNMENT CODE 6103) 

Email: bepstein@fablaw.com;pkibel@fablaw.com 

6 jholder@fablaw.com 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs: County of Madera, 

Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced County Farm 

Bureau, Preserve Our Heritage, Chowchilla Water 

District, and Fagundes Parties 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO - GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE 

COUNTY OF MADERA, et aI., 

Petitioners and Plaintif[<;, 

vs. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondcnts and Defendants. 

CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, a California 

municipal corporation, 

Petitioner and Plaintiff, 

VS. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants. 

Lead Case No.: 34-2012-80001165-CUWM-GDS 

Cases Consolidated for Case Management, 

Briefing and Trial Purposes Only With: 

Case Nos.: 34-2012-80001 I 66-CU-WM-GDS 

34-2012-80001 1 68-CU-WM-GDS 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN 

SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' OPENING 

BRIEF 

Hearing on the Merits: 

Date: April 19,20[3 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

23 TIMELESS INVESTMENT, INC., ct al. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: 

24 Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

25 

26 

27 

28 

vs. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants. 

THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY FRA WLEY 

DEPARTMENT 29 

REQUf.:ST FOR JUDICIAl. N(Y! ICE ISO OPENING RR!EF 

!ll1i!3 (282S-1-) #-+93942.~ 
111 


Insert offset folio 78 here 81259.078

TO ALL PARTIES AND TIIEIR ATTORNEYS Of RECORD: 

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioners the County of Madera; Madera County Farm 

3 Bureau; Merced County Farm Bureau; Preserve Our Heritage; Chowchilla Water District; and 

4 Fagundes Parties ("Petitioners") hereby request that this Court take judicial notice of the 

5 following documcnts attached as Exhibits I through 3 to the Declaration of Jason W. Holder in 

6 Support of Petitioners' Opening Brief ("Holder Declaration"), filed concurrently with this 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

rcquest: 

Exhibit I: 

Exhibit 2: 

final Judgment Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Verified Petition 

for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief("Final 

Judgment'·) and Exhibits A and B attached thereto, issued in the case: City of Palo 

Alto, et al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority (Sacramento County Superior 

Court, Case No.: 34-2010-60000679; Dept. 31, Judge Kenny), dated February I, 

2012) ("Atherton If'); 

Rcspondent California High-Speed Rail Authority'S Memorandum of Points and 

Authority's in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate ("Respondent's 

Opposition Brier') filed in the ease Town of Ather/on, et al. v. California IIighSpeed Rail AUlhority (Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No.: 4-2008-

80000022; Dept. 31, Judge Kenny), dated April 6, 2009) ("Atherton f'); 

19 Exhibit 3: Table Identifying Bates numbers for pages within three large files in the 

20 Administrative Record (""Record") in the above-captioned case. 

21 

22 Pctitioners also request that the Court take judicial notice of a document on file with 

23 this Court in the above-captioned action. Specifically, Petitioners request judicial notice of the 

24 Authority'S document titled: "Rcspondents' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 

25 Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Alternative Application for 

26 Administrative Stay" (""Opposition to PI Motion"), filed November 2,2012 with this Court in 

27 this action. 

28 

I. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NonCE ISO OPL~ING URIEF 

!1I1/13 l2~Q54) #493942 2 
112 


Insert offset folio 79 here 81259.079

Exhibits 1 through 3 to the lIolder Declaration and the Opposition to PI Motion are 

2 collectively referred to herein as the "'Subject Documents." Petitioners offer the following 

3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their request that the Court take judicial 

4 notice of each of the Subject Documents. 

5 

6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

7 IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

8 The court should take judicial notice ofthe Subject Documents pursuant to Evidence 

9 Code section 452. 1 Section 453 requires that a trial court "shall" take notice of any matter 

10 specified in Section 452, provided that the party requesting notice (a) gives each adverse party 

11 sufficient notice of the request to enable that party to meet the request and (b) furnishes the 

12 court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. This request, 

13 and the Subject Documents filed herewith and referenced herein in support of this request. 

14 satisfY the requirements of Section 453 by providing all parties with notice adequate to enable 

15 them to oppose the request, and by providing this Court with both the entire materials for which 

16 notice is requested (or with respect to the Opposition to PI Motion, a specific reference to the 

17 part of the Court's file sought to be judicially noticed), and also argument concerning the 

18 propriety of taking judicial notice of the Subject Documents pursuant to Section 452. 

19 

20 

l. The Court Must Take .Judicial Notice of Exhihit 1 as the 

Decisional Law of a Court of the State of California, 

Pursuant to Section 452, Subdivision (a). 

21 Section 451. subdivision (a). requires judicial notice of"[tlhe decisional ... law of this 

22 state." Exhibit I to the Holder Declaration is a true and correct copy of the final judgment 

23 entered in the Atherton II case. Exhibit 1 is relevant to this case because it provides evidence 

24 that the Court in Atherton I found that the 2008 Bay Area PEIR contained invalid conclusions 

25 of reduced Project impacts based on the incorrect assumption that the LJPRR would allow the 

26 Project to share its ROW, and determined that this false assumption made it likely that the 

27 

28 1 All statutory citations herein are to the California Evidence Code. 

2. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPI.:N!NG BRIEF 

II! II! 3 (28254) #493942 2 
113 


Insert offset folio 80 here 81259.080

Project would have greater impacts than disclosed in the PEIR, triggering revisions to the 2008 

2 Bay Area PEIR and recirculation for public review. Exhibit I is also rclevant to this case 

3 because it provides evidence of the deficiencies this Court found in the 2010 Revised Bay Area 

4 PEIR (as these terms are defined in the accompanying Opening Brief). 

5 For these reasons, the Court must take judicial notice of Exhibit I. 

6 

7 

2. The Court Should Take Judicial Notice of Exhibit 2 and the 

Opposition to PI Motion Pursuant to Section 452, Subdivision 

(d). 

8 Section 452, subdivision (d), allows judicial notice of"[r]ecords of ... any court of this 

9 state." Exhibit 2 to the Holder Declaration is a true and correct copy of the Authority's 

10 Opposition Brieffiled in the Atherton / case, a document in this Court's records. Exhibit 2 is 

11 relevant to this case because it provides evidence of the Authority'S prior representations to the 

12 Court concerning assurances of adequate project-level environmental review. 

13 The Opposition to PI Motion is a document within the Court's file in the above14 captioned action. Statements made in the Opposition to PI Motion are relevant to the 

15 Authority'S schedule for completing environmental review for the challenged Section 

16 approvals. Petitioners will make arrangements with the clerk to have the Opposition to PI Motion 

17 in the courtroom at the time of the hearing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3. I 306(c). 

18 For these reasons, the Court may take judicial notice of Exhibit 2 and the Opposition to 

19 PI Motion. 

20 

21 

3. The Court Should Take Judicial Notice of Exhibit 3 Pursuant 

to Section 452, Subdivision (h). 

22 This Court should take judicial notice of each Exhibit 3 under Evidence Code section 

23 452, subdivision (h). Subdivision (h) authorizes judicial notice of matters "that are not 

24 reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by 

25 resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy," Exhibit 3 to the Holder Declaration is a 

26 table prepared under the direction of Mr. Holder that provides a compilation of the Bates 

27 numbers for each document in the Record that indicates access to a particular parcel am~cted by 

28 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPENING BRIEF 

lfl1/!3 (28254) #493942 2 
114 


Insert offset folio 81 here 81259.081

the Section was "denied.,,2 The factual accuracy of Exhibit 3 is not reasonably subject to 

2 dispute because the accuracy of this document is immediately determinable by reference to the 

3 Record. Exhibit 3 is relevant to this case because it provides a concise compilation of 

4 information in the Record identifying parcels affected by the Section to which the Authority 

5 was denied access for purposes of conducting environmental surveys, and allows a calculation 

6 of the percentage of parcels within the area affected by the Section where the Record shows 

7 that access "denied." 

8 For these reasons, the Court may take judicial notice of Exhibit 3. 

9 Conclusion 

1 0 Petitioners therefore request that the Court take judicial notice of the Subject 

11 Documents identified and referenced herein. 

12 Dated: January 11,2013 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 2 Holder Dec!., " 5 - 10. 

1/11/13 (28254) #493942.2 

FITZGERALD ABBOTT & BEARDSLEY LLP 

By~~~~ ______________ ___ 

A orneys for Petitioners County of Madera, 

Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced County 

Farm Bureau, Preserve Our Heritage, Chowchilla 

Water District, and Fagundes Parties 

4. 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPENING BRIEF 
115 


Insert offset folio 82 here 81259.082

PROOF OF SERVICE - c.c.P. §§lOII - I013a 

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

I, the undersigned, declare: I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of 

California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. I am employed by 

Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley LLP, located at 1221 Broadway, 21 st Floor, Oakland, CA 

94612. I am readily familiar with this linn's business practice of processing of documents for 

service. 

On January 11,2013, I served a true and correct copy of the following documcnt(s): 

8 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' OPENING 

9 BRIEF 

loon all the following interested parties, by causing service by the method indicated below: 

II Kamala D. Harris 

Daniel L. Siegel 

12 James W. Andrew 

Danae J. Aitchison 

13 Jessica E. Tucker-Mohl 

Office of the California Attorney General 

14 1300 I Street, 15th Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

15 Telephone: 916-323-1722 

Facsimile: 916-327-2319 

16 Email: James.Andrew@doj.ca.gov; 

Danae.Aitchison@doj.ca.gov; 

17 Jessica.TuckerMohl@doj.ca.gov 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Attorney for Respondent / Defendant 

California High Speed Rail Authority 

James G. Moose 

Sabrina V. Teller 

Remy Moose Manley, LLP 

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: 916-443-2745 

Facsimile: 916-443-9017 

Email: jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com; 

steller@rmmenvirolaw.com 

Attorney for Respondent / Defendant 

California High Speed Rail Authority 

5. 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPE"ING BRIEF 

11l11l3 (2825<1) #493942 2 
116 


Insert offset folio 83 here 81259.083

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Charles W. Reese 

Kris A. Cox 

Michael J. Higgins 

Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Firstman 

300 Lakeside Drive, 24th Floor 

Oakland, California 94612-3524 

Telephone: 510-835-9100 

Facsimile: 510-451-2170 

Email: creese@wulfslaw.com; 

kcox@wulfslaw.com; 

mhiggins@wulfslaw.com 

Allorney for Petitioner City of Chowchilla 

(Case No. 34-20J2-S00(1166) 

Douglas V. Thornton 

Craig A. Tristao 

Perkins, Mann & Everett, Inc. 

7815 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 200 

Fresno, California 93711 

Telephone: 559-447-5700 

Facsimile: 559-447-5600 

Email: dthornton@pmelaw.com; 

ctristao@pmelaw.com 

Allorney for Petitioner Timeless 

Investments, Inc., Millennium Acquisitions, 

Inc., Horizon Enterprises, G.P. and 

Everspring Alliance, L.P. (Case No. 34-

Thomas E. Ebersole 

Cota Cole LLP 

730 North I Street, Suite 204 

Madera, California 93637 

Telephone: 559-675-9006 

Facsimile: 559-675-9050 

Email: tebersole@cotalawfirm.com 

Allorney for Petitioner City of Chowchilla 

(Case No. 34-20I2-S00(1166) 

IL2=-:Oc:::I,,-2--'OS-=-.O('=-:10-=-1=-:16c.: SL:) ------------'----------------11 

x 

U.S. Mail- By placing a copy of said document(s) in a sealed envelope with postage 

thereon fully prepaid, and depositing said envelope with the U.S. Postal Service. 

following this firm's business practices. 

Overnight Delivery - By placing a copy of said document(s) in a sealed pre-paid 

overnight envelope or package and depositing said envelope or package today in a box 

or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier, following this 

firm's business practices. 

Personal Service - By personally delivering said documents(s) in an envelope or 

package clearly labeled to identify the attorney/party located at the oftice(s) of the 

addressee(s) stated above. 

Facsimile - By placing a true copy thereof into a facsimile machine to the fax number 

stated above, as agreed upon, in writing, by the parties. 

6. 

REQUESI FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPENING BRIEF 

1/11/13 (28254) #493942 2 
117 


Insert offset folio 84 here 81259.084

x 

2 

Electronic Service - By ciectronically sending a copy of said document(s) to the 

attorney or party as stated above and as agreed upon, in writing, by the parties. 

3 I declare under the penalty of perjury under laws of the State of California that the 

4 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 11,20\3, at Oakland, California. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Allecn N. llodgkin 

7. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO OPENING BRIH 

\111m (2R254) #493942 2 
118 


Insert offset folio 85 here 81259.085

Footnote 2: Reply Brief 2013 
119 


Insert offset folio 86 here 81259.086

2 

4 

5 

BARRY H. EPSTEIN #104402 

PAUL S, KIBEL #168454 

JASON W, HOLDER #232402 

FITZGERALD ABBOTT & BEARDSLEY LLP 

1221 Broadway, 21 st Floor 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: 510- 451-3300 

Facsimile: 510-451-1527 

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 

(GOVERNMENT CODE 6103) 

6 Email: bepstein@fablaw.com;pkibel@fablaw.com; 

7 jholder@fablaw,com 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Attorneys for PetitionerslPlaintiffs: County of Madera, 

Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced County Farm 

Bureau, Preserve Our Heritage, Chowchilla Water 

District, and Fagundes Parties 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO - GORDON D, SCHABER COURTHOUSE 

COL'NTY OF MADERA, et aI., 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

vs, 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants, 

CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, a California 

municipal corporation, 

Petitioner and Plaintiff, 

vs, 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants. 

TIMELESS INVESTMENT, INC., et al. 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

vs, 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants, 

Lead Case No,: 34-2012-80001 1 65-CU-WMGDS 

Cases Consolidated for Case Management, 

Briefing and Trial Purposes Only With: 

Case Nos,: 34-2012-80001166-CU-WM-GDS 

34-2012-80001 1 68-CU-WM-GDS 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT 

OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 

AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

Hearing on the Merits: 

Date: April 19, 2013 

Time: 9:00 a,m, 

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: 

THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY FRA WLEY 

DEPARTMENT 29 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3129/13 (28254) #512854.2 
120 


Insert offset folio 87 here 81259.087

2 

4 

6 

7 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction: the Authority Misstates Black Letter Law, Misrepresents Evidence in 

the Record, and Relies on Infonnation Outside the EIR to Cover Up CEQA 

Deficiencies .............. , ......... , ........ , ................................................................................................ 1 

The FEIR's CEQA Violations arc Undeniable Under Black Letter Law ..................................... 2 

A. The Court Owes No Deference to the Authority With Respect to Legal Claims ............. 2 

B. The FEIR Unlawfully Tiered Off of Two Decertified PEIRs .......................................... 3 

C. "Disclosing" Integral Phases of the Project and Promising to Assess 

Environmental Impacts of Phases "Later" Does Not Avoid CEQA 

Piecemealing ................................ , .................................................................................... 4 

D. The FEIR's Project Description is Inaccurate, Imprecise, and Inconsistent .................... 6 

E. The FEIR Failed to Analyze the Section's Cumulative Impacts in Combination 

With Contributing Impacts of Neighboring Project Sections ........................................ 10 

F. Significant New Impacts Disclosed in the FEIR Triggered Recirculation ..................... 12 

O. Secondary Impacts from Mitigation Measures must bc Analyzed ................................. 14 

The Opposition Critically Misrepresents the Administrative Record and Unlawfully 

Relies on Infonnation Not Included or Even Referenced in the FEIR ...................................... 16 

The Exhaustion Requirement is Satisfied as to Each Challenged Claim ................................... 19 

Conclusion: CEQA Provides Discretion for the Court to Fashion Calibrated 

Remedies, But Not to Excuse Fundamental Violations of Law ................................................ 20 

J129!13 (28254) #512854.2 
121 


Insert offset folio 88 here 81259.088

2 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2S 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

T ABLE OF AUTHOIUTIES 

Anderson First Coalition y, City of Anderson 

(2005) 130 CaLAppAth 1173 ."'".,""."."".""""." .. ".,,"" .. " ...... " .. ,, ...... "".,."' ................... " ..... 15 

Assoc. of Irritated Residents v, County oJAfadera 

(2003) 107 CaLAppAth 1383 .. """ .... " ............. ,, .................................................................... 8, IS 

Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City oj Bakersfield 

(2004) 124 CaLAppAth 1184 .............. ", ......................................................... " ......... 2, 10, 11, 12 

Bozung y, Local Agency Formation Comm, 

(1975) 13 Ca1.3d 263 .... " ................................................................................ " ........................... ,5 

California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. 

(2006) 143 CaLAppAth 173 ." ..... " ................................ , ......... " ...... " .. ,,, .................................... 15 

California Native Plant Soc, v. City oj Rancho Cordova 

(2009) In CaLAppAth 603 ............... " ...... " ............... "" .................... " ... " .... " ... " ..... "".""."".19 

Citizens For Quality Growth v. Mount Shasta 

(1988) 198 CaLApp.3d 433 " ..... " .... " .................................. " ..... "" ........... " .......... " .............. " ... 14 

Citizens of Goleta Valley v, Bd. of Supervisors 

(1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553 " ..................... " ................................... " ........... ". " ......... " ....... " .................. 2 

Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura 

(1985) 176 CaLApp.3d 421 .. "." ........... " ......... " ....... " .. "."" .. ""." ............. " ... " .. " ..... " ................. 2 

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Ed. of Supervisors 

(1986) 183 CaLApp.3d 229 ... " .. "." .................................... " ........... " ..... " ................................ 5,6 

City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. 

(2009) 176 CaLAppAth 889 ....................................................................................................... 12 

Clover Valley Foundation v. City oj Rocklin 

(20 II) 197 CaLAppAth 200 .... "" .... " ...... " ........ .""" .......... " ....... ,, .................... 14 

Communities for a Belter Environment v. City oj Richmond 

(2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70 ............................ " .. " .................................... "" .... " ............... " .. " ...... 2 

County of lnyo v, City of Los Angeles 

(1977) 71 CaLApp.3d 185 .................................. " .................................................................... 8, 9 

East Peninsula Education Council. Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. 

(1989) 210 CaLApp.3d 155 .................. """" .. " ............ " ......................................................... ,, .. 2 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3/29113 (28254) #5128542 
122 


Insert offset folio 89 here 81259.089

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Ebbetrs Pass Forest Watch v. Calif Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection 

(2008) 43 CaL4th 936 .................................................................................................................. 2 

Friends of Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency 

(2002) 95 CaI.AppAth 1373 ..................................................................................................... 3,4 

Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency 

(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859 ......................................................................................................... 7 

In re Bay-Delta Programmatic [EIR} Coordinated Proceedings 

(2008) 43 CalAth 1143 ............................................................................................................... 2 

Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California 

(1988) 47 CaL3d 376 ............................................................................................................ 2,5,8 

Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura 

(1985) 165 CaLApp.3d 357 ....... ,", .. ,.,', ............ ,"",'.'.""""""',.,." .... ,., ... """"',., .. , .... ', .. , .. , .. ,' 9, 14 

Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. 

(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 ...................................................................................................... 13 

Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. 

(1997) 16 CalAth 105 .................................... , ........................................................ , ............... , .. , .. 1 

Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors 

(2001) 91 CaLAppAth 342 ........ , ........... , ................................... " ........... , .......... , .......................... 8 

Nelson v. County of Kern 

(2010) 190 CaI.AppAth 252 .................. ,." ............................... ,,, ...................... , .... " ........ " ...... 6,7 

Protect Our Water v. County of Merced 

(2003) 110 CaLAppAth 362 ................... " .. "" ......... " .. " ........ " .. , ................... , .......................... " 16 

Resource Defeme Fund v. Local Agency Formation Comm. 

(1987) 191 CaLApp,3d 886 ............. "" .................... "" .. "" ........................... " ... " ...................... 19 

Riverwatch v. County of San Diego 

(1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 1428 ...... " .. "." .. " .................................................... , ........ " .................... ' 15 

San Franciscamfor Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco 

(1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61 " ............ " ............... " ..... "" .. " ........... " ............... " .............................. 11 

San Joaquin Raptor v. County of Stanislaus 

(1994) 27 CaLAppAth 713 ............... " .................... "." ................... " .. " ......................... " ...... , 7, 19 

Santiago County Waler Dist. v. County of Orange 

(1981) 118 CaLApp.3d 818 ............................................................... " ............... " ..... " ....... ,,5, 17 

Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood 

(1992) 9 CaI.AppAth 1745. .. .... " .............. " ... .. .. ................................ " ........... ",: ... 19 

3/29113 (28254) #51285 1U 

iii ---PETlTlONERS' REPLY B''''R1:::E';:'F---
123 


Insert offset folio 90 here 81259.090

Sierra Club v. State Bd. oj Forestry 

2 (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215 .................................................................................................................. 2 

Sierra Club v. West Side Irr. Dist. 

4 

(2005) 128 CaJ.App.4th 690 ........................................................................................................ 5 

5 Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County oJStanislaus 

(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182 ....................................................................................................... 6, 7 

6 

7 Sunnyvale West NeighborhoodAssn. v. City oJSunnyvale 

(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 ..................................................................................................... 15 

Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City oJSunnyvale City Council 

9 (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351.. .............................. . ..................................................... 2 

10 Sutler Sensible Planning, lnc. v. Bd. oJSupervisors 

11 (1981) 122 CaJ.App.3d 813 ........................................................................................................ 12 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

Tuolumne County CitizensJor Responsible Growth v. City oJSonora 

(2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214 ................................................................................................... 2, 5 

Vineyard Area Citizens Jor ReJponsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova 

(2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 ................................................................................................. 5,13,14,16 

CEQA (Public Resource Code) 

§ 21001 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 

§ 21092.1 ............................................................... , ................... , .............................................. , ... 2 

§ 21094(a) ................................................................................................................... , .. , ... , .......... 3 

Other Authorities 

24 CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) 

§ 15088.5 .................................................................................................................................... 12 

25 § 15088.5(a)(I) ..................................................................................................................... 13, 14 

§ 15088.5(a)(2) ........................................................................................................................... 13 

§ 15121 ......................................................................................................................................... 8 26 

27 §15124 ......................................................................................................................................... 8 

§ 15124(a) .............................. , ................................ ,., .. , ................................................................ 9 

§ 15126.4(a)(1)(0) ................................................................................................................ 14, 15 28 

29 § 15150(c).................................................................................................. ..16 

§ 15151 .................................................................................................. .. ................... 8 

§ 15152(g)............................................................... ................... .. ...... 4 30 

31 § 15161................................... . ............................................................................... 7 

§ 15165 ......................................................................................................................................... 5 

32 

iv 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF' 3a9/J3 (28254) #512854.2 
124 


Insert offset folio 91 here 81259.091

§ 15204 ............................................................ , ........... ,",., ........................ , ................. , .. , .... ,.,',.,., 8 

2 

§ 15355(b ) ... ,." ....... ,., ...... , ... ,." .. " ............ , " ............. , ........... , ..... , ... , ........ , ...... ,., .. , .... ,' .. ', .. ,.,"', ..... 1 1 

§ 15378 .. " .. , ....... , ... , ...... ,., .. , ....... , .... , .. ,.,.,., "., ... ,." ........ , .. , ...... , ... ', ...... ,., .. ,.,., .. ,., , ......... " ..... , ... , ...... 5 

§ I 5384(a) .. , ' ..... , ' .......... ,.,., , .. , ..... ,.,. ".,., ........... ,.'" ,., .. , .... ,.,' .. , ..... , ... , .. ,.', ....... " ................... ".,., ... 15 

4 Remy, et aI., Guide to CEQA 

5 (11th Ed., 2006) ................................................................... , .................................................. 2,10 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

\3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

3129/l3 (28254) #512854.2 
125 


Insert offset folio 92 here 81259.092

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

I. Introduction: the Authority Misstates Black Letter Law, Misrepresents Evidence in the 

Record, and Relies on Information Outside the EIR to Cover Up CEQA Deficiencies 

The Respondent's Opposition Brief ("Opposition" or "ROB") defends the FEIR prepared for 

the Section by providing ineffective excuses for the flawed tiering and deferred environmental review 

process, misstating black letter CEQA law, mischaracterizing Petitioners' arguments, and urging a 

legally improper deferential standard of review to Petitioners' claims involving questions of law. The 

Opposition also mischaracterizes facts in the Record, improperly relies on information outside of the 

FEIR, and presents factually unsupported justifications in an attempt to mask the FEIR's glaring and 

fundamental deficiencies, These efforts constitute an unlawfully narrow and evasive approach to 

environmental review and public participation, 

Faced with the election of a Governor who just wants to "get s--- done" I and a late 2010 award 

under the federal stimulus package providing funding only for projects that can spend a massive 

amount of cash fast, the Authority changed course in the middle of its project planning, It jettisoned 

station-to-station construction in favor of constructing an ICS that, as an integral l30-mile segment, 

could qualify for the federal dollars. In the rush to move forward, the prior plans for completing 

CEQA review got in the way,' In response, the Authority simply eliminated some of its planned 

analysis, moved ahead without sufficient project design essential for review, and stuck to presenting 

its theoretical station-to-station project concept even though the actual project had become the ICS, 

CEQA provides an important brake to protect the environment and California's residents: this 

landmark law prevents decision makers from placing expediency above legal duty. This Court's role is 

to enforce that duty so that CEQA serves its essential function to "provide long-term protection to the 

environment."] Contrary to the "sky is falling" scenarios the Authority has previously presented, a 

determination by this Court that the FEIR does not comply with CEQA does not necessarily equate to 

'!!IX loss of federal f\Ulding. When finding an agency has not complied with CEQA, a reviewing court 

retains discretion to fashion appropriately calibrated relief. This discretion does not extend, however, 

to excusing the crucial and numerous violations of CEQ A described below and in Petitioners' 

Opening Brief. Instead, the Court must apply the law and find violations where they exist. ' 

I http://blogs,saebee,com!eapitolalertlatestl2012/07/jerry-brown-i-want-to-get-s----done-at-thisstage-of-Iife.html. 

2 The Authority acknowledged (and indeed highlighted) its change of priorities in its previous 

briefing in opposition to Petitioner's preliminary injunction motion. 

) Mountain Lion Foundation v, Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 105, 112, citing § 21001. 

4 Space constraints preclude Petilioners from addressing every argument Respondent makes in its 

Opposition. This, however, should not be interpreted as a waiver of any of Petitioners' claims, See 

Petitioners' Opening Brief 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3!29/1J (28254) #5128S42 
126 


Insert offset folio 93 here 81259.093

II. The FEIR's CEQA Violations are Undeniable Under Black Letter Law 

2 A. The Court Owes No Deference to the Anthority With Respect to Legal Claims 

While the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the people and their representatives, 

4 it can and must "scrupulously enforce all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.'" Indeed, the 

Court owes!!Q deference to the Authority where it has misapplied the law6 

6 When describing the applicable standard of review for addressing Petitioners' claims, the 

7 Authority emphasizes the "substantial evidence" standard applicable to factual conclusions and 

8 conveniently discounts the separate "failure to proceed" standard applicable to procedures and 

9 questions of law7 Given the nature ofthe majority of Petitioners' claims, this articulation ofthe 

10 applicable standard of review is legally incorrect and an invitation to crror. 

11 The violations of CEQA black letter law identified in Petitioners' Opening Brief ("POB") and 

12 described further below are subject to de novo review, not the substantial evidence standard. 

13 Specifically, the de novo revicw standard applies to Petitioners' claims of improper tiering,8 

14 piecemealed environmental review,9 incomplete and inconsistent project description,IO the failure to 

IS follow procedures required for cumulative impacts analysis, 11 the complete failure to analyze 

16 secondary impacts,'2 and what constitutes "new" significant information for purposes of triggering 

17 recirculation. 13 These claims raise questions of law. The Court must presume prejudice when an 

18 agency fails to adhere to CEQA's mandatory requirements. '4 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Citizens a/Goleta Valley v. Bd. a/Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 564. 

6 Remy, et aI., Guide to CEQA (11th Ed., 2006) (Remy), p. 826, excerpt attached as Exh. A. 

7 ROB 4:9-13, eiting In re Bay-Delta ProgrammatiC [EIR] Coordinated. Proceedings (2008) 43 

Cal.4th 1143, 1161-62 (In re Bay Delta). In re Bay Delta does not support the Authority's broad brush 

characterization of the standard of review applicable to Petitioners' claims. 

8 East Peninsula Education Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. (1989) 210 

Cal.App.3d ISS, 165 [interpretation and applicability of a statute is question of law]. 

9 Communities/or a Better Environment v. City 0/ Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 98 (CBE); 

see also Tuolumne County Citizens /01' Responsible Growth v. City a/Sonora (2007) ISS Ca1.AppAth 

1214,1224 (Tuolumne County). 

10 Ibid. [applying de novo review to claim EIR did not describe all project components]. 

II Ebbetls Pass Forest Watch v. Calif Dept. 0/ Forestry and Fire Protection (2008) 43 CalAth 936, 

949 [whether agency followed required cumulative impact analysis procedures "is a predominantly 

procedural question" on which courts exercise independent legal judgment"J; see also Bakersfield 

Citizens jar Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1208 (Bakersfield). 

12 See Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421,428; see also 

Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents a/University a/California (1988) 47 CaL3d 376, 409, 

fn, 12 (Laurel Heights 1) [nnsnpported no impact opinion entitled to no jndicial deference]. 

13 See § 21092.1; see also fn. 8, supra. 

14 Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City a/Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.AppAth 

1351, 1385, qnoting Sierra Club v. State Bd. 0/ Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1237. 

3/29/1) (28254) #512854.2 
127 


Insert offset folio 94 here 81259.094

B. The FEIR Unlawfully Tiered Off of Two Decertified PEIRs 

2 The DEIR tiered off of the already decertified 2008 Bay Area PEIR; it also tiered off of the 

20 I 0 Revised Bay Area PEIR, which was then in the midst of litigation and was also decertified in 

4 April 2012, before the FEIR was released. The CEQA statute (§ 21094(a» and controlling case law are 

clear - a lead agency can <m!y tier a FEIR off of a certified EIR and a FEIR may not tier off of a 

6 decertified EIRl5 The Authority's attempts to explain away this fundamental violation of CEQA fail. 

7 The Authority offers no explanation at all for tiering off of the decertified 2008 PEIR and, with 

8 respect to the decertified 2010 PEIR, baldly asserts (without any legal authority or factual basis) that 

9 the 2010 PEIR was somehow not "really" decertified. More specifically, the Opposition states that the 

10 challenge to 2010 PEIR was only "partially" successful and that Respondent's filing ofa notice of I 

11 appeal ofthe trial court's ruling "stayed" decertification while the appeal was pending. 16 Both of these 

12 arguments evaporate under closer scrutiny. 

13 First, the February 2012 Supplemental Writ of Mandamus ("Supplemental Writ") issued by 

14 this Court in the litigation on the 2010 PEIR makes no mention of "partially" or "selectively" 

15 decertifying only portions ofthe 20] 0 PEIR. 17 Rather, the Supplemental Writ required the Authority to 

16 set aside its certification of the 2010 PEIR in its entirety: that is what the Authority did. 1S Wbile a trial 

17 court has discretion in certain circumstances to partially decertify a EIR, that is not what was done. 

18 Second, the effect of Respondent's notice of appeal is irrelevant. Perfecting an appeal from the 

19 Court's ruling ordering decertification of the 2010 PEIR does not "stay" the Authority's responsive 

20 decertification Resolution. The Authority decertified the 2010 PEIR in its entirety before releasing the 

21 FEIR. End of story. The Authority'S "stayed" argument is hollow and disingenuous. 

22 Perhaps recognizing that there was no merit to its "partial" and "stayed" decertification 

23 arguments, the Authority presents a third argument to try to salvage its tiering scheme. In effect, the 

24 Authority argues that the new 2012 Partially Revised PEIR either masked the DEIR's invalid tiering 

25 off of the decertified 2008 and 2010 PEIRs or somehow revived the 201 0 PEIR. 19 This iiering 

26 argument is even more legally and factually dubious than its "partial" and "stayed" arguments. 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

15 Friends a/Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383, 

quoting § 21094(a). 

16 ROB 7:7-14. 

17 See Exh. 3 to Declaration of James Andrew in Support of Opposition ("Andrew Decl."), Order 

Denying Discharge of Writ of Mandate and Ordering Issuance of Supplemental Writ of Mandate. 

18 Id. p. 2: 15-21; see also FI33407 [Resolution #lISRA 12-18, decertifying 2010 PEIR in its entirety]. 

19 ROB 8:1-7. 

3129113 (28254) #512854.2 
128 


Insert offset folio 95 here 81259.095

In response to the Supplemental Writ, the Authority opted to prepare and certify a new 

2 Partially Revised PEIR in 201220 The FEIR includes just two passing references to the a new 2012 

3 PElR, suggesting in these passages that, while the DEIR for the Section tiered exclusively off the 

4 decertified 2008 and 2010 PEIRs, the FEIR was now also tiering off of the 2012 PEIR and the 

5 2008/20 I 0 PEIRs.21 Based on this approach and reasoning, the Opposition now attempts to disregard 

6 critical facts: (I) the DEIR and FEIR tier off of different documents, (2) the 2008 and 2010 PEIRs 

7 were both decertified in their entirety, and (3) the FEIR does not explain how the 2012 PEIR corrected 

the decertified PEIRs (or otherwise relates to the prior analysis). Reduced to its core, this third 

9 argument appears to have two aspects, both of which are absurd: (I) simply pretend there was no 

10 tiering off of the decertified 2008 and 2010 PEIRs (notwithstanding that the FEIR's text primarily 

11 references tiering off of only these PEIRs); and (2) by filing a notice of appeal (which the Authority 

12 did not pursue) and certifying the 2012 PElR, the Authority was able to magically "recertify" or "un13 decertify" the 2010 PEIR. 

14 The Authority also attempts to distinguish Friend, of the Santa Clara River by arguing it did 

15 not rely on the decertified PEIRs.22 But it cannot disclaim reliance on the decertified PEIRs because an 

16 agency is presumed to have relied on a PEIR when it prepares a second-tier EIR that states it is tiering 

17 off oflhat first-tier PEIR23 Further, the FEIR actually did rely on these PEIRs (e.g., it expressly relied 

18 on the 2008 PEiR and sometimes both decertified PEIRs for its cumulative impacts analysis)?4 As 

19 should be evident, all of these arguments are nothing more than smoke and mirrors - an elaborate 

20 attempt to explain away a tiering scheme that was impermissible under established CEQA law. 

21 

22 

c. "Disclosing" Integral Phases of the Project and Promising to Assess 

Environmental Impacts of Phases "Later" Does Not Avoid CEQA Piecemealing 

23 The Authority fundamentally misrepresents why CEQA's piecemealing prohibition exists. 

24 Piecemealing is not simply about "disclosing" the components of the whole project and promising 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

20 F133408-41O [Resolution #HSRA 12-17, certifying 2012 Partially Revised PEIR]. 

21 See BOOOI47-48, 7828-29. These cursory explanations regarding (I) multiple rounds of litigation 

challenging the Bay Area PEIRs and (2) the consequential revisions to the PEIRs did not adequately 

explain the situation or its implications. See Part III, infra. 

22 ROB 8:20-29. 

23 Friends of Santa Clara River, supra, 95 Cal.AppAth at p. 1384 [rejecting similar argument, noting 

"respondent's reliance on the [first-tier EIR] is implicit in the concept oftiering"J, citing Guidelines, § 

15152(g). The Authority disregards this critical part of the court's ruling. ROB 8-9. 

24 See, e.g., B001342-45, 52; see also B008634 [response to comment #1111-4 "The EIRJEIS is also 

tiering by relying on the analysis in the previous Program FIRs addressing the impacts of the full 800· 

mile system and cumulative impacts of the HST System as a whole"]. 

4 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3129113 (28254)#112854.2 
129 


Insert offset folio 96 here 81259.096

future analysis for some of them, as the Authority asserts.25 It is about ensuring that the environmental 

2 impacts of the whole project are actually assessed up front, at one time and are fully mitigatcd.26 

3 Guidelines sections 15165 and 15378 establish that: when an individual activity is part ofa 

4 larger project, the ElR for the activity must address the environmental impacts ofthe larger project; 

that an EIR's project description is required to cncompass all components that make up the "whole of 

6 the action"; and that a proper assessment of the impacts of the larger project can in some instances be 

7 accomplished in the cumulative impacts analysis rather than through a more expansive project 

description. Taken together, Section 15165 and 15378 make it unlawful for a lead agency to defer 

9 analysis of portions ofthe project. CEQA's piecemealing prohibition ensures that "environmental 

10 considerations nol become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones - each with a 

II minimal impact on the environment - which cumulatively may have disastrous conscquences.,,27 

12 The Authority violated CEQA's piecemealing prohibition by treating the integral wyc 

13 alignment as severable from the Section and failing to fQ!!!Plete the analysis of alignments within the 

14 central wye "boX."28 Impacts of the SR ]52 ,>"ye alternative (and any other new wye alignment 

15 alternatives) will be analyzed separately from those of the now-approved portions of the Section, 

16 potentially leading to underreported impacts; the incomplete review of wye alignment alternatives 

17 followed by approval of disconnected portions of the Scction has created irreversible momentum to 

18 approve the missing wye connection. The piecemealing prohibition is intended to prevent precisely 

19 these results29 "More analysis" of the wye alternatives "later" does not avoid or cure the problem, as 

20 the Authority asserts. 30 Instead of being a defense to piecemealing, the pledges offuture environmental 

21 review are admissions that such piecemealing has occurred. The Authority piecemealed review by not 

22 completing impact analysis for the "wye" alignment alternatives in the FEIR for the Section. Period, 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

25 ROB 11 :3-19 [incorrectly suggesting piecemealing concerns whether environmental effects of 

undisclosed components/phases of a larger project will ultimately go "un-analyzed"]. 

26 See POB 19:2-10, fns. 107, 108. 

27 Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm. (1975) 13 CaL3d 263, 283-284 (Bozung); see also 

Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Ca1.3d at p, 396. 

28 Tuolumne County, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229, citing Sierra Club v. West Side Irr. Dist. 

(2005) 128 Cal.AppAth 690, 698; see also POB 20-21. The Authority points out- quite correctlythat a lead agency can approve less of a project than it analyzed (ROB II :20-26, 12: 1-2), but the point 

is irrelevant and mischaracterizes the piecemealing claim: the Authority did not fully analyze the 

Section it expressly defcrred analysis of the SR 152 wye. POB 7:8-10, 19: 11-15, tns. 109-110. 

29 See City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Bd of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 242 (Carme!J; see 

also Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 830 (Santiago). 

30 ROB 10:6-12. See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova 

(2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412,440-446 (Vineyard) [rejccting arguments that more analysis later concerning 

project's water supply cures deficiency in ElR, on the basis ofimperrnissible deferral of analysis]. 

5 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3/29113 (28254) #5128542 
130 


Insert offset folio 97 here 81259.097

The Authority asserts that the Section was the CEQA project but admits that its wye analysis 

2 was incomplete.JI Defending this approach, it claims full analysis of the wye was not required because 

it will not "soon" construct this central portion ofthe Section.J2 Yet it then claims it did not need to 

4 analyze thc ICS as the CEQA "project" because the (entire) Section "can be implemented 

5 independently.,,)3 These inconsistent arguments show the Authority wants to have it both ways. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

D. The FEIR's Project Description is Inaccurate, Imprecise, and Inconsistent 

It is "crucial" for the decision makers to know what the "project" is. 

Numerous cases have stated that "[o]nly through an accurate view of the project may 

affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its 

environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage ofterminating the 

proposal ... and weigh other alternatives in the balance" and that "[a]n accurat~, stable 

and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient 

EIR." [Citations.]3' (emphasis added) 

Correctly determining the project's nature and scope is a "critical step" in complying with CEQA35 

The ICS is the true CEQA "project" that the Authority was required to accurately describe 

and analyze: The FE1R provides an inaccuratc description of the project - it focuses on a theoretical 

Section while barely hinting at the lCS. But the ICS is what the Authority has been planning to build 

since late 2010: it is the only portion of the Project in the Central Valley for which thcre is available 

funding?6 It will include entirely new track on a fully separatcd ROW that spans 130 miles, with 

Amtrak trains operating in the interim and high-speed trains operating if and when the $31.3 billion 

lOS is completed.37 The lCS, evcn if initially not capable of running high-speed trains, is still a new 

rail line. The Authority was required to accurately describe and analyze the lCS as thc CEQA 

"project.,,38 It was inaccurate to describe the Section as the project. 

While the FElR added cursory references to the lCS, these few sentences did not (I) provide 

any of the available details concerning the Authority's actual plans for constmction and interim 

operation or (2) analyze any of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of constructing and 

31 See B000175-76 [explanations re incomplete analysis ofwye alternatives]; see also ROB 10-12. 

J2 ROB 10:15-20 [noting that plans to soon construct the ICS do not include construction ofwye]. 

33 ROB 12:20-21 [disregarding lack of imlepemlent utility without thc central "wye" alignment]. 

34 Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County a/Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182,201. 

35 Nelson v. County a/Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 267 [county erred by considering only the 

impacts of a mine reclamation plan without also considering the impacts of the mine project itself]. 

36 N000025-26,40-49. 

37 N000002-4, 17-18; see also H000613-615 [LAO report stating funding is "highly uncertain"]. 

38 See Carmel, supra, 183 Cal.AppJd at pp, 241, 244. ROB 12: 11-14, 13:1-5 [arguing Authority did 

not need to analyze the ICS as the project because it would not initially have all HSR characteristics]. 

--""PE:;;;;TI""TI"""ONC::E"'"RS;"', RE~PL-;;Y-;;:B;;-;Rl;ET-- 3129113 (28254)#5128542 
131 


Insert offset folio 98 here 81259.098

operating the ICS." Suggestions to the contrary are false." The Authority's claim that it did not have 

2 to analyze the impacts of interim Amtrak service on the ICS is like an agency that approves a freeway 

project claiming it does not have to analyze any resulting traffic and other anticipated operational 

4 impacts because it will not be driving the vehicles. Courts have rejected such narrow approaches to a 

5 lead agency's duty to describe and analyze the impacts of all project phases and components. 41 

6 The situation at issue in this case is analogous to that in Raptor but on a much larger scale. 

7 There, an EIR for a large residential mixed-use development project excluded analysis of the impacts 

8 of a sewer expansion necessary to service the project on the basis that a separate subsequent EIR 

9 would analyze the sewer expansion's impacts. The Court in Raptor found that the EIR's "truncated 

10 project description" prevented adequate consideration of the larger project's environmental effects and 

II that, even if the sewer expansion was severable from the project, the EIR would still be deficient 

12 because the expansion was a foreseeable future project contributing to cumulative effect. 42 

13 Because these actual construction plans were necessary for accurate analysis of direct, indirect 

14 and cumulative construction-period impacts, accurately disclosing this information and integrating it 

15 into the impact analysis was mandatory') Where, as here, an agency is actually aware of information 

16 relevant to analysis of environmental impacts, it is both reasonable and practical to include that 

17 information in an EIR, and omission of that information violates CEQA'4 The Authority had detailed 

18 information regarding the phased construction of the BO-mile ICS even before the DEIR was released 

19 and had even more detailed information before the FEIR was released. 45 Yet, the FEIR did not even 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

)9 See, e.g., B000252-253, 276 [study area for transportation impacts "ends in downtown Fresno"], 

296-300 [no mention ofICS in discussion of construction period traffic impacts], 1342-71,7854-55 

[Standard Response Gen. 13, falsely stating FEIR analyzed impacts of constructing the ICS]. 

40 ROB 13:10-16. Simultaneously circulating the Fresno to Bakersfield section ("F-B section") DEIR 

for public review did not cure this truncated description problem, as the Authority suggests; it 

compoumled it. Instead of having to review one 17,000-page EIR to understand and comment on the 

ICS's impacts, the public and public agencies had to review two and draw their own conclusions 

regarding combined impacts of the undiselosed ICS, which partly spans these two sections. 

41 See, e.g., Nelson, supra, 190 Cal.AppAth at pp. 269-270' [County required to describe and analyze 

all aspects of mining project, while only approving reclamation plan for project on federal land]. 

42 San Joaquin Raptor v. County ofStantslaus (1994) 27 Cal.AppAth 713, 733 (Raplor). 

43 See Guidelines § 15161 [EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including construction]; see 

also Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, supra, 48 Cal.AppAth at p. 204. 

44 See Friends oflhe Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 870-71 

[lead agency improperly withheld information relevant to project's impacts from EIR]. 

45 See G000374-375 [June 2011 report to CHSRA Board]; see also N000094, 99-102 [March 2012 

CPI RFP, Scope of Work]; see also 1005600-03, 5804-07 [April 2012 submittals to FWS and CDFG]. 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3129113 (28254) #5128542 
132 


Insert offset folio 99 here 81259.099

describe known construction phasing for the lCS, much less analyze the impacts.46 As a result, the 

2 analysis of construction-period impacts was fundamentally inaccurate.47 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Thc Authority had no discretion to chop up the ICS in this way. By not accurately describing 

the ICS as the project, the Authority "stultifliedJ the objectives of the reporting process.,,48 Promises 

to mitigate the Section's construction-related air quality and traffic impacts cannot compensate for the 

FElR's lack of analysis and mitigation ofICS impacts49 

The FEIR's Vague Project Description Precluded Required Detailed Impact Analysis: An 

ElR "is an informational document" that must be "prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to 

provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently 

takes account of environmental consequences."so It is an educational tool for decisionmakers and for 

the public, a document of accountability, and an environmental "alarm bell." For these reasons 

"CEQA's investigatory and disclosure requirements must be carefully guarded."S} An EIR's "failure to 

provide enough information to permit informed decisionmaking is fatal. "S2 A project description need 

not contain every detail but it must be sufficiently detailed for full environmental impact analysis. 53 

These strict requirements apply to i!l! projects for which an EIR is required, no matter how 

large or complex - there is no legal support for the suggestion that a larger project gets a "pass" to 

provide less detai1." Such a "grudging, miserly reading of CEQ A" would undermine the policy of 

"afford[ingj the Jullest possible protection ". within the reasonable scope of the statutory language."s5 

The Authority'S design-build approach to project-level review is inadequate under CEQA. 

What the Authority calls as "design-build" is really "approve now/design later." The approach does 

not excuse the failure to provide an adequate project description (nothing under CEQA allows a lead 

46 See B0253-254 [falsely suggesting RFP for CPI had not been issued and that construction phasing 

was still unknown]. 

47 See B0252-257, 262-263, 296-300. See also ROB 14:17-21 [presenting straw man argument re 

~recise detais; cited evidence does not provide accurate and detailed information concerning the ICSj. 

, County oj Inyo v. City oj Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193. 

49 See ROB 12:22-26, 14:3-4. 

50 Guidelines §§ 15121, 15I5!. 

51 Assoc. oj Irritated Residents v. County oj Madera (2003) 107 Ca1.App.4th 1383, 1392 (AIR), 

~uoting Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Ca1.3d at p. 392. 

5 Napa Citizens Jar Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. oJSupervisors (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 342, 361, 

374 [EIR inadequate for failing to identify and analyze water sources and wastewater facilities]. 

53 Guidelines § 15124. 

54 See ROB 4: 19-23. The Authority's misreading of Guidelines § 15204 stands CEQA on its head. 

Instead of permitting less environmental review for large or complex projects, these factors indicate 

that the larger the project and the greater the impacts, the more "reasonably feasible" it is to invest the 

resources and time required to adequately study and fully mitigate those impacts. 

55 See Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Ca1.3d at p. 390. 

3/29!IJ (28254) #5 128542 
133 


Insert offset folio 100 here 81259.100

agency to forgo this requirement if it is proceeding on a design-build basis). The approach failed here: 

2 The FEIR's 15% design omitted information required per the Authority's own design-build 

3 guidelines, such as the location of construction staging areas, batch plants, and major utilities;" 

4 • Decisions regarding important project features (with environmental impacts) were put off until 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

after the public comment period and many were even deferred until after Section approval;57 

The Authority admitted the 15% level of design was insufficient for detailed impact analysis 

(this admission applies to much more than social-economic impacts, as asserted);58 and 

• The Section's vague design invites substantial changes throug~ "value engineering.,,59 

The FEIR vaguely described possible Section characteristics and lacked the details necessary for 

project-level environmental review. For example, 

• Water crossing designs were described as optional, and were thus inherently vague; 

• Key portions of electricity infrastructure were not described or analyzed (e.g., required power 

sources, substations and reconductoring of transmission lines, etc.);60 and 

• Irrigation, drainage, and water supply/sewer infrastructure was not specifically identified.'} 

Without specific descriptions ofthese project components, detailed impact analysis was impossible. 

Unstable Section features invalidated project-level impact analysis: The EIR was also 

required to consistently describe all project charactcristics'2 and depict the project's "precise 

boundaries."" But here, the Authority compounded the problems created by an inaccurate and 

indefinite project description by disclosing substantial changes to Section characteristics in the FEIR. 

Par example: 

• The assumed track structure changed from 100% ballast to 70% slab/30% ballast.M 

56 Compare F075346-50 [15% design requirements] with 8000255, 453 [staging area and batch plant 

locations deferred to final design); see also B009191, 9210 [comment and response re missing info). 

57 See, e.g., B007982, 8134-35, 8209, 8252, 8532, 8748, 8928, 9179, 9346-4710714-15. 

58 B008114, 8137, 8211. The Authority mischaracterizes these admissions as only applying to socioeconomic impacts. ROB 16, fn. 27. 

59 See, e.g., KOII27I, 11381, 12940-41 [planned viaducts may be converted into earthen berms to 

save money]; see also NOOO108. These e-mails demonstrate the vulnerability the vague design has 

with respect to major post-approval project changes without environmental review. 

60 B000452-453, 610, 618, 627, 639,1178; see also B009346 ["The specifics of connections, specific 

extensions of lines, and future remote power sources are unknown at this time"). 

6} See, e.g., B008215, 8420-21, 9178-79, 9347. The Authority simply assumed the mimy undisclosed 

conflicts with existing utilities would be solved (but had no basis for doing so). 

62 See Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 CaI.App.3d 357, 366 (Mira 

Monte); see also County of Inyo, supra, 160 Cal.App. 3d at p. 1185. 

63 Guidelines § 15124(a). The Authority otTers no support for its assertion that CEQA does not require 

a stable and accurate description of a project's boundaries. ROB 19: 17 -20. 

64 See POB 24-25, fns. 140, 146, citing, e.g., C000519, B000076, 167,255-256,520. 

_________ 9 

PETIT!ONERS'·"'RE~·ccpc-L y=BccRccIE=Fc----

3/29113 (28254) 11512854.2 
134 


Insert offset folio 101 here 81259.101

Every HMF alternative was unviable because none are located adjacent to the ICS. 65 

2 Adding the shoofly expanded the impacted area beyond that covered in the DEIR. 66 

The result: a huge gulf between the Authority's plans the ICS and what the FEIR described and 

4 studied. The fact that the ICS is large and complex, and that the Authority was in a hurry to complete 

the process, does not excuse the inaccurate, indefinite and unstable project description. 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

E. The FEIR Failed to Analyze the Section's Cumulative Impacts in Comhination 

With Contributing Impacts of Neighhoring Project Sections 

As Petitioners pointed out in their Opening Brief, Courts have held that an adequate cumulative 

impacts analysis is "absolutely critical" and "vitally important" when multiple projects will produce 

cumulative impacts.67 The full environmental impact of a project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. 68 

The FEIRfailed to analyze the contributing cumulative impacts of neighboring sections: To 

properly analyze the Section's contribution to cumulative impacts together with the contributions from 

neighboring sections, the FEIR would need to describe these sections and their contributing impacts, 

and then detennine whether the Section's impacts, when combined with those of these sections, would 

be cumulatively considerable. 69 But the FEIR did not even accomplish step one in this process - it 

never described the neighboring sections nor did it include them on the lists of projects relevant to the 

cumulative impacts analysis.7o While it acknowledged the possibility of cumulative construction airquality impacts from the F-B section, it did not analyze these and other contributing impacts." 

Instead of providing the required analysis, the FEIR provides generalized descriptions of 

impacts of the "HST System" as a whole, based on the PEIRs. 72 The Authority points to these 

discussions concerning system-wide impacts when claiming the FEIR provides the required analysis, 

but ignores their reliance on the PEIRs (see analysis above regarding why such tiered reliance on the 

This is not a matter of speculation, as the Authority asserts; it is evidenced in the Record. See 

B008934 [Ha [lIMF) will be constructed and outfitted ... on a parcel of land adjacent to the ICS 

tracks"); see also BOOOI77, NOOOI28. The Authority's defense that the lIMF's are theoretically viable 

is hollow (ROB 18: 16-21); theoretical viability is entirely irrelevant for the purpose of impact analysis. 

66 See POB 25, fn. 147, citing, e.g., BOOOI60-161. 

67 POB 27:9-15. 

68 Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at p. 1214 [summarizing cases concerning the importance of an 

adequate cumulative impacts analysis]. 

69 See Remy, supra, pp. 467-468, attached hereto as Exh. A. 

70 See ROB 22:16-21 [referring to lists of planned and potential projects]. 

71 For example, the discussion regarding cumulative impacts from construction never acknowledges 

the planned construction of the F-B section. See, e.g., B001342. In some instances, the discussion of 

cumulative impacts directly contradicts what the Authority knew. See, e.g., BOOI361 [stating some 

cumulative impacts cannot be identified because construction schedule has not been fully developed). 

72 See B001352 ["As described in the Program EIRJEIS documents .... "], 1345-46,49,55,56,57,59, 

69,71 [same), 1362,64,66 [analyses refers only to 2005 PEIRand (decertified) 2008 PEIR). 

10 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF lI291l3 (28254) #5 12854.2 
135 


Insert offset folio 102 here 81259.102

decertified PElRs is impennissible).73 The generalized analysis in the early PElRs, with the later2 rejected assumption that the Project could share rights-of-way and deferred analysis of many types of 

impacts, could not possibly provide the missing analysis74 Thus, the FEIR failed to provide the 

4 required analysis of the Section's cumulative impacts combined with neighboring sections' impacts. 

This failure is analogous to a city's failure to consider cumulative impacts oftwo neighboring 

6 supercenters in Bakers/ield.75 There, the court found that the two projects were "present" and "closely 

7 related" projects within the meaning of Guidelines § 15355(b) such that cumulative impacts analysis 

was required to consider the neighboring project's contributing impacts. Here, as in Bakersfield, the 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

neighboring F-B section is a present and closely related project because the DEIR for the F-B section 

was released simultaneously with the Section's DElR, commenters commented on both sections, and 

major portions of both sections will be constructed together as part of the ICS.76 Similarly, the San 

Jose to Merced and Merced to Sacramento scctions are future and closely related projects: the 

Authority had already begun preparing the ElRs for these sections and was designing those routes even 

before the DEIR for the Section was released. 77 Each of these neighboring sections will likely cause 

impacts that will contribute to the Section's impacts73 Yet the FEIR gauged the Section's effects in a 

vacuum, preventing accurate disclosure ofthe significance of cumulative impacts. 

The FEIR "failed to reflect a conscientious effort to provide public ageneies and the general 

public with adequate and relevant detailed information" about the Section's cumulative impacts.79 

Therefore, the Authority did not comply with a critical and mandatory CEQA requirement. 

By not explaining its rationale for limiting the geograp/tic scope of the cumulative impacts 

analysis, the Authority violated CEQA: The Authority attempts to justify the geographic scope of its 

impact analysis by asserting the FEIR described the selected geographic scope for each resource area 

7J ROB 22:22-27, 23:1-27 [citing FEIR discussions that rely on PElRsJ; but see ROB 8:27-28 

[disclaiming reliance on PEIRs). This is yet another example ofinconsistcnt and mutually exclusive 

positions. The Authority cannot have it both ways. 

74 See POB 3-4, 32-33, fns. 3, 4,183,185. 

75 Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at pp. 1215-1216 [E1R deficient for failing to consider 

cumulative impacts of neighboring supercenter projects). 

76 See, e.g., G000414-15 [July 2011 Staff Report), B007960 [EPA comments], 8499 [CFBF 

commentsJ, N000128 [map depicting CPIJ. 

77 See B011287, 11295-97 [Program Management Team Progress Report, July 2011, references to 

cnvironmental review and engineering work for neighboring sections). 

7& The Authority presents straw man arguments to dismiss the possibility that neighboring sections 

could contribute to the Section's cumulative impacts (e.g., noise impacts in distant cities will not 

combine). ROB 23:19-23. Thcse arguments ignore the likelihood that neighboring sections will 

contribute to cumulative noise and other impacts in the areas where they meet. See POB, 31. 

79 San Franciscansjor Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 

Cal.App.3d 61, 79 I city failed to consider related pending projects in cumulative impact analysis). 

11 

PETlTIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3/29113 (2&254) #s !2854.2 
136 


Insert offset folio 103 here 81259.103

and provided "an additional explanation," where "warranted."'o This argument disregards the 

2 requirement to explain the criteria used to select the geographic scope for every resource area,81 For 

almost all resource areas, the FEIR simply asserts the geographic scope for analysis, without 

4 explaining the selection criteria,82 In this respect too, the FEIR is analogous to the inadequate ElR in 

5 Bakersfield and differs from the EIR upheld in City of Long Beach (the case the Authority cites).8) For 

6 example, the FEIR's study area for cumulative impacts to agricultural lands included only "Merced, 

7 Madera, and Fresno counties.',84 It did not explain why the scope excluded Kern and Kings counties, 

9 

10 

11 

12 

!3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

when the Authority knew that the ICS would traverse these counties through productive farmland,85 

F. Significant New Impacts Disclosed in the FEIR Triggered Recirculation 

The Authority argues that the widespread increases in noise impacts from substituted slab, the 

miles of additional sound barriers, and new historic resources impacts did not trigger recirculation, 

These arguments rely on a crucial misunderstanding of what constitutes "significant new information" 

that triggers recirculation under Guidelines, section 15088.5. These instances of additive significant 

new information required recirculation, in accordance with well-established CEQA preccdcnt86 

The switch to concrete slab revealed significant new impacts, triggering recirculation: When 

arguing the switch from 100% ballast to 30% ballastl70% slab did not trigger recirculation, the 

Authority applies incorrect standards by pointing to "net" noise impacts after uncertain mitigation 

from substituted concrete slab. 87 This argument fails for several reasons. First, the argument is based 

on the incorrect and unsupported assumption that all of the proposed sound barrier mitigation will be 

implemented to produce a "net" decrease in severe noise impacts,88 In the FEIR, adopted CEQA 

80 ROB 21'15-25 

81 See POB: 29:12-16, citing Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p, 1216. 

82 See, e.g., B001337, 1342 [Transportation], 1343 [Air Quality], 1345 (Noise], 1347 [Public Utilities 

and Energy], 1349 [Biological Resources and Wetlands], 1357 [Hazardous Materials and Wastes]. 

8) Compare Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p, 1216 [no explanation provided for determining 

geographic area for each category of impacts) with City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School 

Dis!, (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889,909 [EIR "provided a reasonable explanation" of same]. 

84 See B00I365. 

85 F133876 [Central Valley is one of the richest most productive agricultural regions in the world], 

BOOlO66 [FEIR describing regional agriculture]: see also N000048, 128 [maps oflCS and CPl]. 

86 See, e.g., Sutler Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Bd a/Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App,3d 813, 822-823, 

87 ROB 38: 14-22, fn. 50. The Authority admits the DEIR's noise and air quality impact analyses 

assumed 100% ballast and the FEIR's analyses reflected a substantial change in that assumption (ROB 

38, fn. 49), but asserts that this switch is merely "an engineeringlconstructability issue, not a 

fundamental project description issue" and that the "look" and "location" ofthe track described in the 

DEIR will be the same as the track in the FErR, (ROB 18:3-5) These claims are preposterous because 

they disregard the difference in impacts between the two project designs, as evidenced in the Record. 

88 ROB 38:14-23, 39:1-2, 

113129113 (282;4) #5 11854.1 
137 


Insert offset folio 104 here 81259.104

findings, and SOC, however, the Authority acknowledgcd that sound barrier mitigation is uncertain, 

2 because local governments may not agree to barriers as mitigation and because the ultimate approved 

3 design may not attenuate noise to the levels assumed in the analysis.89 The Authority cannot avoid 

4 recirculation by asking the Court to now assume that the new slab-induced increase in severe noise 

5 impacts will be mitigated to lower levels. Thus, the potential substantial increase in severe noise 

6 impacts from slab triggers recirculation, pursuant to Guidelines section 15088.5(a)(2).90 

7 Second, the Authority cannot dispute the fact that the FEIR acknowledged new significant 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

noise impacts even after mitigation, whcreas the DEIR assumed that sound barrier mitigation, where 

implemented, would be 100% effective in climinating severe noise impacts.91 This acknowledgement 

that significant noise impacts would remain even after mitigation triggered recirculation92 

Third, the FEIR proposes more than fivc miles of sound barriers as mitigation to reduce slabinduced severe noise impacts93 Constructing these new barriers will cause increased air quality, noise 

and other impacts. 94 They will also cause ncw visual impacts when in place. The A uthority strives to 

distract attention from (and minimize through an improper extra-Record analysis) these increased 

impacts that were never analyzed. 9s It also relies on analysis of the project's overall air quality 

impacts, but this analysis was revised substantially after the DEIR was circulated for public review.96 

The Authority cannot escape the fact that the extcnsive sound barriers, added to mitigate increascd 

severe noise impacts from the switch to slab, will cause new impacts that triggercd recirculation97 

89 See B000568 ["some sevcre noise effects may not be mitigated if barriers that would fully mitigate 

impacts are undesirable becausc of their visual impacts"], 569; see also A000041-42 [finding sound 

barrier mitigation uncertain and noise impacts significant and unavoidable 1, 124-25 [SOC], 155-56. 

90 Guidelines § 15088.5(a)(2) [in order for a substantial increase in an impact to not be considered 

significant new information, it must be mitigated to below a level of significance]; see also Vineyard, 

supra, 40 CaJ.4th at pp. 48-49 [potential new impact to salmon species triggered recirculation]. 

91 Compare C000606 [Tables 3.4-21 through 3.4-23, no severe noise impacts after sound barrier 

mitigation] with B000546 [revised Tables 3.4-22 through 3.4-24, showing dozens of severe noise 

impacts after miles of additional sound barrier mitigation for all Section alternative alignments]. 

92 See Guidelines § 15088.5(a)(2). . 

93 Compare C000606 with B000560 [FEJR added 27,400 feet of sound barriers for Hybrid Alt.]. 

94 POB 45:1-3, fn. 267. 

95 ROB 39:4-19-40:1-23. The Authority'S argument regarding construction-related-traffic impacts is 

a red herring - it focuses on operational impacts and ignores the traffic impacts associated with 

transporting materials necessary to construe( miles of additional sound barriers. ROB 39: 13-14. Its 

argument regarding increased sound barrier impacts falls flat because it is conclusory and supported 

only by evidence of generic impact analysis. ROB 40:4-23. 

96 ROB 39:14-17, citing F095976-77 [buried appendix]. The dramatic IO-fold reduction in disclosed 

air quality impacts after the public comment period (i.e., behind closed doors and after opportunity for 

scrutiny) is itself inconsistent with CEQA's public disclosure and participation requirements. 

97 See Guidelines § 15088.5(a)(I) [significant impact from new mitigation triggers recirculation]; see 

also Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 CaI.App.3d 1043, 1052-1053. 

13 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 312911 3 (28154) #512854 2 
138 


Insert offset folio 105 here 81259.105

New impacts to unique historic resources triggered recirculation: The Authority attempts to 

2 disregard significant new impacts to the Belmont Subway/Circle, claiming these resources are within a 

category of already-identified impacts and that reduced impacts to other historic resources offset the 

4 new impacts. It offers no legal authority to support this cavalier "net" approach to impact analysis. 

The Belmont Circle was the first traffic circle in Fresno, deeded to the City in 193298 Once 

6 demolished to make way for HSR, this unique historic structure would be gone forever. The 

7 significant impacts on unique historic resources, disclosed for the first time in the FEIR, are analogous 

8 to a newly disclosed encroachment on wetlands found to require recirculation in Mira M0l1te99 

9 Guidelines § 15088.5 provides that although recirculation is not required when new information 

lOin an FEIR merely "clarifies" analysis of an impacted resource previously assessed in a DEIR, 

11 recirculation is required when a FEIR identifies a "new" significantly impacted resource that was not 

12 previously identified in a DEIR.IOO CEQA decisions have confirmed this distinction.lolin Clover 

13 Valley, the Court of Appeal found that recirculation was not required when an FEIR merely added 

14 "narrative detail" on the impacts to cultural resources that had been previously identified and analyzed 

15 in the DEIR. Yet here, in clear contrast, the significant impacts to the two historic structures noted 

16 abovc wcre identified for the first time in the FEIR. Similarly, in Vineyard the California Supreme 

17 Court found that recirculation was required when the FEIR included new information about the 

18 potential impacts of groundwater pumping on surface waters/salmon habitat. In making this 

19 determination, the Vineyard Court did not consider whether "groundwater impacts" in general or 

20 "salmon impacts" in gencral had been analyzed in the DEIR. Rather, the salient point was that the 

21 DEIR had not considered the impacts of groundwater pumping on surface waters/salmon habitat, and 

22 that the FEIR's acknowledging this potential significant impact constituted significant new 

23 information requiring recirculation. Similarly, here the newly disclosed significant impacts to the 

24 unique Belmont Circle/Subway and other historic resources also triggered recirculation. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

G. Secondary Impacts from Mitigation Measures must be Analyzed 

An EIR must analyze and discuss the secondary impacts from mitigation. 102 The lead agency 

has the burden of showing it has conducted the required impact analysis. IOJ It must base its 

98 B008I86, 8253 [comments regarding Belmont Circle/Subway]. 

99 Mira Monte, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 364 [increased impacts triggered recirculation]. 

lOa Guidelines § I5088.5(a)(I). 

101 See Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (201 I) 197 Cal.App.4th 200 (C/over Valley); see 

also Vineyard, supra, 40 Ca1.4th at pp. 448-449. 

102 Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(I)(D). 

IOJ Citizens For Quality Growth v. Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 445-446. 

14 

PETITIONERS' REPL Y IlRlEF Jn9113 (28254) #512854.2 
139 


Insert offset folio 106 here 81259.106

conclusions regarding impacts on substantial evidence, 10' The Authority did not meet that burden here 

2 with respect to analyzing potential secondary impacts from mitigation, but attempts to shift that burden 

onto Petitioners,105 It cannot shirk its responsibility, 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

The FEIRfailed to analyze secondary impacts from traffic mitigation measures: In direct 

violation of CEQ A's requirements, the FEIR summarily dismissed, withoutw supporting facts and 

analysis, the possibility of secondary traffic impacts from the implementation of traffic mitigation 

measures,106 These measures involve dozens of individual roadway and intersection expansion 

activities, These types of transportation projects, on their own, have walTanted CEQ A reviewI07 

The FEIRfailed to analyze secondary impacts from habitat restoration mitigation: The 

Authority also violated this requirement with respect to habitat restoration mitigation, In CFBF, for 

example, the court acknowledged that restoration activities would involve "heavy earth moving 

equipment," the construction of"[I]evees, ditches, swales, loafing bars, and other features," alteration 

of the "existing drainage pattern," installation of a new pipeline, and the introduction of new 

vegetation. 108 The habitat restoration activities at issue here call for similar measures, 109 Yet, the FEIR 

is devoid of W analysis of potential secondary effects that could be caused by this mitigation work, a 

clear violation of this CEQA requirement. The Authority's arguments, which point solely to evidence 

outside the FEIR (and not incorporated by reference), do not address the failure to satisfy the 

requirements ofOuidelines § 15126A(a)(1)(0).1I0 

The Authority summarily dismissed, without any substantiation, the possibility of secondary 

impacts from traffic and habitat restoration measures, These bare conclusions were prejudicial because 

they precluded "infolTlled decisionmaking and infolTlled public participation.,,111 

ID' AIR, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p, 1391 [EiR must contain facts and analysis, not bare 

conclusions]; see also Guidelines § 15384(a), 

105 ROB 33-34, fils, 40-41. This attempt to shift the burden of impact analysis onto Petitioners is a 

recurrent theme for the Authority, See ROB 13:9-10; 14:18-19, 

106 8000398; F090584 

107 See, e.g., Riverwatch v. Counry of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 1428, 1445 [finding ErR 

contained infolTllation needed to evaluate impacts of the roadway widening necessary for project]; see 

also Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 1173, 1190 [rejecting claim 

that failure to analyze frceway interchange impacts amounted to piecemealed review, but noting that 

"the interchange improvements will be subject to environmental review at some point"]. 

10. See, e.g., California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 

CaLAppAth 173, 195 (CFBF) [rejecting agency's argument that changing the use of property from 

agriculture to habitat would cause no impacts and that project qualified for a category exemption], 

109 8000788 [restoration/enhancement activities include grading, stockpiling, storage of equipment, 

installation oftemporary irrigation, removal of invasive species, and drainage feature treatments]. 

110 ROB 34:4-14 [citing unincorporated infolTllation provided to FWS concerning mitigation strategy], 

III See Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. Ciry of Sunnyvale (2010) 190 CaLAppAth 1351, 1392, 

15 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF ]./29f13 (28154) #512854 2 
140 


Insert offset folio 107 here 81259.107

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 

29 

30 

31 

32 

III. The Opposition Critically Misrepresents the Administrative Record and Unlawfully 

Relies on Information Not Included or Even Referenced in the FEIR 

As explaincd below, the Authority attempts to supplement the FEIR's deficient analysis with 

unsupported post hoc analysis. This effort violates the "immutable rule" "[i]f it is not in the record, it 

did not happen." 112 It also runs afoul of the following admonition: 

The audience to whom an EIR must communicate is not the reviewing court but the 

public and the govemment officials deciding on the project. That a party's briefs to the 

court may explain or supplement matters that arc obscure or incomplete in the EIR, for 

example, is irrelevant .... The question is therefore not whether thc project's significant 

environmental effects can be clearly explained, but whether they Were. I 13 

The Authority also attempts to rely on extra-E1R information to make up for the dearth of 

information in the EIRI14 This is prohibited where, as here, an EIR does not satisfy specific 

requirements for incorporating such information by reference. 115 If the Authority wanted to rely on 

information outside of the FEIR, it was required to follow the requirements of Guidelines, section 

15150. Because it did not, its briefs cannot now make up forthe lack of explanation in the EIR. 

To make matters worse, the Opposition misrepresents facts. Lest the Court be influenced by 

these unsupported and false statements, Petitioners chronicle and address them, as well. 

Dismissed relevance of the decertified 2008 and 2010 PEIRs: The Authority attempts to 

dismiss the relevancy of the decertified Bay Area PEIRs, arguing that they relate to a different 

geographic area and that the Statewide PEIR identified the same general route from the Bay Area to 

the Central ValJey.116 In fact, the errors found in the decertified PEIRs are highly relevant for projectlevel review for HSR sections throughout the state, including for this Section. The Court's decisions 

concerning the 200S and 2010 Bay Area PEIRs debunked a primary assumption (made in the 

Statewide PEIR and again in the 200S Bay Area PEIR): that the HSR system could share ROW with 

freight railroads. lll The Court found that UPRR's rcfusal to sharc its ROW was significant new 

inforination that required recirculation (duc to increased impacts). 118 These increased impacts will 

occur along the entire SOO-mile Project. Also, the Statewide PEIR deferred analysis and a decision 

concerning the route connecting the Bay Area to the Central Valley. 119 Only after the Bay Area PEIRs 

112 Protect Our Water v. County a/Merced (2003) 110 Cal.AppAth 362, 364. 

lI3 Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 443, emphasis in original. 

114 See, e.g., ROB 13:10-15 [reliance on unreferenced reports to supplement missing information] 

115 See Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 442-443; see also Guidelines § 15150(c). 

116 ROB 6'15-16 7'1-6 S'4-5 

117 See FL?'6565: 753,791', 799-S00. 1271S5, 193; see also F133708, 894, 914, 134567, 645. 

118 See Exh. 3 to Andrew Decl., Exh. A, Ruling on Submitted Matter, pp. 3-4. 

119 See F139733 [directing preparation ofPEIR re alignment connecting Bay Area to Central Valley]. 

16 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3129113 (28254) #5 12854.2 
141 


Insert offset folio 108 here 81259.108

further studied these alternative routes did the Authority Board actually select the Pacheco Pass route2 this route requires the Section's wye alignment in the Chowchilla vicinityl20 

Incomplete analysis ofwye alternatives is not harmless: In attempting to excuse the FEIR's 

4 failure to analyze the SR 152 wye alignment,121 the Authority flatly misrepresents facts. Its ignores its 

5 own FEIR and other studics and suggests the SR 152 wye alternative would have less impacts than the 

6 two alternatives considered in the FElR.122 The only evidence cited to support the claim that "[n]o 

7 impacts went under-disclosed" are letters from federal agencies that do not support this assertion. With 

& no supporting FEIR evidenee, the Authority resorts to making up facts regarding SR 152's impacts. 

9 Inaccurate information concerning t/,e constructing the ICS (starting with CPJ): TIle 

10 Authority incorrectly describes CPI a' only including a portion of the Section - CPI also includes the 

II northern 5-f(1i1e portion of the neighboring F-B section, through south Fresno. 123 Thus, even this first 

12 ICS constmction phase implicates the FEIR's cumulative impacts analysis. The claim that "other 

13 traffic impacts are localized ... and were discussed in the F-B DEIR" lacks any Record supportl24 

14 The Authority also claims the public could not have been misled regarding its plans to 

15 construct the lCS because (I) separate staff reports disclosed some information regarding the ICS and 

16 (2) the F-B section's DEIR was released simultaneously with the Section's DElR. 125 Neither the DElR 

17 or FElR, however, mention these staffreports. The FElR's responses to comments mentioned the 

1& simultaneous release of the F-B section's DElR,i26 but adding these terse references at the eleventh 

19 hour can scarcely be called effective in incorporating its analysis or information about ICS impacts. 

20 Thus, the Authority cannot now rely on these separate documents to make up for the FEIR's 

21 informational deficieneies. 127 

22 Inadequate investigation of baseline biological conditions: The Authority falsely claims that 

23 rare plant surveys complied with protocol and guidance documents - it did not conduct illlY Fall 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

[20 See ROB 7:1-4, citing B000049, 124, 14&-149. 

121 See B000175-176 [FEIR expressly omitted and deferred analysis of impacts along SR 152 route]. 

122 ROB 11:16-1&, fn. 19; see also BOOOl73 [SR 152 wye would have high impacts]. Thus, another 

potential outcome of deferred analysis is the SR 152 alignment may have an increase in some impacts. 

123 See ROB 14:10-13; see also NOOOI02 [description ofCPlc], 12& [map ofCPI]. 

124 ROB 14:6-&. 

125 See ROB 13:10-16. 

126 See BOO7&49, 7853-55 [Standard Responses General-7 and General-12]. 

127 Santiago, supra, 11& Cal.App.3d at p. &31 ["whatever is required to be considercd in an EIR must 

be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations 

cannot supply what is lacking in the report"]. 

17 

PETlTlONERS' REPLY BRlEF 3129(J3 (28254) #512854.2 
142 


Insert offset folio 109 here 81259.109

surveys, contrary to protocol and the Authority'S own 2010 survey plan. 128 The survey effort was not 

2 as thorough as claimed. The Authority does not explain why detailed surveys were not conducted on 

properties where access was granted, and ignores the admission that it did not conduct protocol-level 

4 surveys because of its drive to finish review quickly to maximize use of federal funding. 129 

5 Unanalyzed impacts of wildlife crossing structures: The Authority claims wildlife crossing 

6 structures were adequately described and analyzed in the FEIR, but it cites only to extra-FEIR 

7 evidence to support this argnment. lJO The information provided to CDFG and FWS is certainly more 

8 detailed than that provided in the FElR, but it was never summarized or even referenced in the FEIR. 

9 It cannot be used now to substitute for j2ubli£ disclosure in the FEIR of impacts from these structures. 

10 Analysis of direct impacts do not address its secondary impacts: The Authority points to the 

11 FEIR's analysis of direct impacts and to documents not referenced in the FEIR as proof that the FEIR 

12 analyzed the secondary impacts from two forms ofmitigationB1 The Authority's sole reliance on 

13 irrelevant and unincorporated analysis is proof that the FEIR did not analyze the very real possibility 

14 that traffic and habitat restoration mitigation measures would result in separate impacts. 

15 Extra-record, post hoc explanations concerning the cumulative impacts analysis: The 

16 reasons offered for the constrained geographic scope for cumulative impact analysis lack !illY 

17 supporting evidence in the Record. 132 The Authority claims that the traffic impact analysis considered 

18 impacts throughout Fresno, but the FEIR indicates it only considered building parts of the Section; 

19 there is no indication that it considered building any part ofthe F-B section. l3J 

20 Impacts from the expanded Section footprint were not analyzed: The Record contains!lQ 

21 evidence supporting the claim that the impacts associated with the shoofly were described and 

22 analyzed. 134 This post hoc impact analysis is not permitted. The Authority also attempts to supplement 

23 the FElR's impact analysis for the shoofly by referring to unreferenced extra-FEIR evidence. 135 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

'" See ROB 27:14-21; see also POB 34:10-13, fns. 195, 196, 197; see also F026653, 27744, 

129 See 1005897 [reasons for no protocol-level surveys: "Time constraints" and "ARRA Funding"]. 

130 See ROB 41: 1-8, citing IO05179-5251, 5246 [excerpts from memorandum submitted to FWS and 

CDFG - an extra-FEIR document that was not incorporated into the FEIR by reference]. 

131 ROB 33-34. 

132 ROB 22:4-7 [argument with no supporting evidence]. 

lJ3 ROB 24: 1-2, th. 33. 

l.J4 ROB 41: 11-12, 41: 18-19 [claiming that, because the FEIR included a cursory new description of 

the shoofly, it must have analyzed the shoofly's impactsj. 

135 See ROB 41, fns. 56,57,42:3-7. 

18 

PETITIONERS; REPLY BRIEF 3129JIJ (28254) #5 [2854,2 
143 


Insert offset folio 110 here 81259.110

Without an impact analysis, the Authority could not have determined, based on any substantial 

2 evidence, that recirculation was not triggered by this new project feature, as it now asserts.136 

IV. The Exhaustion Requirement is Satisfied as to Each Challenged Claim 

4 Petitioners satisfied the exhaustion requirements as to all six issues identified by the Authority 

5 as not being adequately raised at the administrative level. IJ7 The argument that these issues are barred 

6 because no one raised these "exact" issues during the administrative process for the Section is based 

7 on crucial misstatements of applicable CEQA exhaustion law. 

The Authority mischaracterizes the holding in the single case upon which it relies in asserting 

9 that a CEQA petitioner must raise the "exact issue" that it later raises in litigation. 138 In RDF, the 

10 "exact issue" was the general question of whether recirculation of an EIR was rcqiured. The RDF 

11 Court held that because the "failure to recirculate the EIR" was not raised during the administrative 

12 process "plaintiffs could not now raise the issue for the first time in litigation." The tcrm "cxact issue" 

13 as used in RDF is therefore far less exacting than the Authority suggests. 139 This attempt to hold 

14 Petitioners to an incredibly narrow exhaustion standard is another invitation to error. Under the correct 

15 exhaustion standard, commenters provided fair notice as to all six claims: 

16 Project description should have identified ICS to accurately analyze construction impacts;140 

17 • Project description was unstable between the DEIR and FEIR; 141 

18 The Authority piecemealed review by not treating the ICS as the CEQA project;142 

19 • Failure to explain basis for selected geographic scope for cumulative impacts analysis; 143 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

136 ROB41:11-12,41:19. 

J37 ROB 5:9-12,12:11-15,13:28-30,16:20-22,18 (fn. 28), 21:6-8, 36:3-8, 39:7-9, 41:9-11, 42:1-12. 

The Authority asserts, without any supporting legal authority, that Petitioners are required to "show" 

they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Sueh an affirmative showing is not required. 

138 ROB 5:9-11, citing Resource Defense Fundv. Local Agency Formation Comm. (1987) 191 

Cal.App.3d 886 (RDF). 

139 See Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745; see 

also Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 735, th. 10; see also California Native Plant Soc. v. City of 

Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 616. 

140 Information regarding the ICS was added to the FEIR, thus there was limited opportunity to 

specifically raise this issue. See B000252-53. Comments regarding the need to analyze the impacts of 

the actual construction plan sufficiently raised this issue. See, e.g., B009316 [comment #668-13], 

8631-32 [comment #131-2],8127-28 [comments #703-10 -703-12]; see also H000561. 

141 See, e.g., B010710 [comments #965-2 965-3], H000976, 980-981 [UPRR comments criticizing 

lack of analysis of shoofly and other freight railroad interference issues and requesting recirculation]. 

582 [comment stating recirculation required due to impacts caused by changed design]. 

142 See th. 140, supra, regarding limited opportunity to raise ICS issues. To the extent commenters 

were able to raise this issue, they did. See, e.g., B009316 [comment #668-13 questioning whether the 

project was really coterminous with each sectionj, 8631-32 [comment #131-2 re need to analyze ICS]. 

19 

PETlTlONERS' REPLY BRIEF 3/29113 (28254) #512854.2 
144 


Insert offset folio 111 here 81259.111

I I Fuilure 10 re~;pt,md 10 . ..;pccific point .... mad.: i1l DEll<. commenls:H,l und 

2 h:li!ure to rCL-iri;ulate du:: to nc\V sound. visual. and :lislnric rt:SOtllTC5 impacts. ~~ 

l;Ul1h~!'~ ~GV~!'H! (lrrJlL~ i~~u..:s n~late :IJ illhmn~!lit.ln firs! pf("~\.'llted in ~hG FEfRjust ua;.s be-fort' 

.~ (, thl.! finallllcl'lings on 11K Section. h!1> The c:,h;lU'i.lion doctrine does nul ,1pply at nIl. l.)r <:t k:Jst $hO~lld 

nni apply in nano\-\, mann:~J' the {\u1hori1)' urge'S, issU!..'s pre~,-'nt("J for thl] fif~l time i1l1hc n:IR, 

(\ V. ('()!leiu,;on: CFQA P,'o,ides Discretion fo!' tb" Cuul'l to fi"shiv" C:,libI'HtcLl R"l1)cllies, 

nut "ot II! Excuse Fundamental Violution, of La", 

10 

II 

12 

In ... kfemling. tiK' FE(R~ Ihe :\nthority ha~ tak..::n il1cnn~istcnt pn:o;itioO'..:, l1ii~ch~lractc:i,('d "lIe!s. 

and has C:\'I".'n mndl: lip ll(:'\\ a:KtlY:-il:-:. BUl it (ar.np·t ( ..'scar~ critical fads in the Rcc<Jrd thai c...;tahlish 

limdnmcntal ytnlatlon;o; (\1'< 'fJ).'\, .As '''l~j[ed m 1/)'S I~c-ply, Ihe- I 1:1R: (1) Imrroperly lictn>d \~frof 

tkccrtilicd PEIR:;.;: (2) ri~Cl"m";;;1Icd an{llys:s ofthl' Hv.,'hn[c pwjccf': en dnL~" nnt dcscrihc the project 

\\,lih details 3ttt·:lcicnt for ;)t'ojGcl~lcv~1 impact analyc.;is: (4) inclutks a cHmniall\'c impacis analy __ i .... 

13 I that ignores cnr:rrihuling kn::al and r~glona! impH(':.s 1i'l)!TlIl1fe~ n,,~ighh()ri!1g i ISR Pn~in.'t s;.'rtlons: (5} 

14 : di~mi..;s.cs. withoHi any .:;.uPPPrti:1g analy~i-:.. the "'-ccondary impacts (ron) muttirlc rnitig;nion m8<1~ure:::.: 

15 1 and (6) includes ':)igl1iti\:~1IH new illl~H'nwtinn, but \vas 11\)1 r~l'irndat('d, (Pditi()n.:r~ ~H,lJn.:-~s J:1 .. HnC;0US 

16 otht'r ·,:inblinnc:.. in P('tlt1nner< Opening Brie.'!'.) 

17 h:titil)nCrq !\pte thaL '.vhl1..:~; fL'VJ\.'\\,ing L~uurt doe~ not h;\vL: discretion to turn \1 hlind C'y\..' h) Ihle' 

18 i:pcs ofc()r~ CH)A viola!i(>l1' ilkmitie,1 above,:t ,hIes ha,,<' di,crclion 10 I;"hion all aPI';'''pria!" WI it. 

19 Tht:s~ l',)[1sidera1ions \'-'(luld ht' addn:s!:lcd in tho.: n:mcdy phase. Petitioners [c:)pr\:-lfl..lily rLX!m':.;t th<.H the 

21) (\,url gntn[ the Petition I(lr Writ ol'!\,hlllclalc, 

21 ! Dated; \larch 29, 2013 FITZ(lt:RALD ,,\BHOTT /(: BEARDSLEY LLf' 

12 

27 

13 

30 

31 

By 

Pditit'r1crs}'PlainlifT:-:: C\HlTlI\, or Madl'f~\, 

h.lnlj rhtrea~. Ivkrct:u CU~I:lh' i";)Ul1 

Hu:'cau. Preserve Our Ilcf"lUH2,t:, CJh)'o,vchiH<-l \\.'atl'l' 

Di ... trict ;md f':-wundl:s Pal"tic~..-; 

H000561 :r(lih,w-up Cdmment rl!gHnjin~ d~!ickut n:~pons-e tu c()mm<.':lt #717-19 4uuling 

IW'''';'',,,,,,,,n' lh~t h:8Li Hgentic~ '~prll\"idc a r~asunlJbk c\plar,atiQn fur the gcogrnphi..: limitaliun used"j. 

c g. j I(HJ0641~64~ Icritlc1zing gl'nL~rdl n;sron~t's W "1.) C'(lnjm(~;1t\l, 571 

mitigation,', :'/2-ST:' [critici/.ing thc' ALlthority\ fail un: respt\;ld hl 

1)1' impact 10 agricultural lullds 1 

S't't' rn. i -+ 1. unstable: JH\)j~'Ll des..;riptiI.H1. ';ame Lomm-:nt:s al~lJ rcqu("sted 

rccin:ulntiun: ,\i:'<: e.g,. \8{" ~~53. ~6·P, 8(;.5). 

I'" BOI 33()21 \ollce (If ,\v"ilabilii) vi' FElR, ,liuwiq,; FElR rcl~'h~ dale of /\pril 2()121, 

1111( 
145 


Insert offset folio 112 here 81259.112

EXHIBIT A 
146 


Insert offset folio 113 here 81259.113

II TH EDITION 

GUIDE TO 

CEQA 

California Environmental Quality Act 

Michael H. Remy 

TIna A. Thomas 

James G. Moose 

Whitman F. Manley 
147 


Insert offset folio 114 here 81259.114

176 Cal. App. 3d 421, 431-432 [222 Cal. Rptr. 247] (Citizens fQ Preserve the Ojat) (citing Fnends if Mammoth v. Board if Supervisorr (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 247, 259 [104 Cal. 

Rptr. 761J). In Citizens fQ Preserve the (Jjm; the court explained: 

"It is vitally important that an EIR avoid minimizing the cumulative 

impacts. Rather, it must reflect a conscientious effort to provide public 

agencies and the general public with adequate and relevant detailed 

information about them." [Citation.] A cumulative impact analysis which 

unde-rstates information concerning the severity and significance of 

cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the 

decisionmakees perspective concerning the environmental consequences 

of a project, the necessity for mitigation measures. and the appropriateness of project approval. [Citatio'n.] An inadequate cumulative impact 

analysis does not demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the govern.mental decisionmaker has in fact fully analyzed and considered the 

environmental consequences of its actions. 

176 Cal. App. 3d at p. 431 (quoting Son Fnmciscansfor Reasonable Growth v. 00/ and Cmmty 

if San Francisco (1st Disc 1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 61, 79 [198 Cal. Rptr. 634] (SFRG 1)) 

iii. Timing of Cumulative Analysis. Unless cumulative impacts are analyzed, 

agencies tend to commit resources to a course of action before understanding its 

long-term impacts. Thus, a proper cumulative irp.pacts analysis must be prepared 

"before a project gains irreversible momentum:' City if Antioch v. City COUJ1ctl if the 

City if Pittsburg (1st Dist 1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325, 1333 [232 Cal. Rptr. 507] (citing Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 282 [118 Cal. 

Rptr. 249]). The fuct that certain projects' cumulative impacts are uncertain does not 

relieve the lead agency from including such impacts in its analysis. The discussion 

should be as specific as possible, but as general as necessary. Terminal Plaza Corp. v. 

00/ and County if San Francisco (1st Dis!. 1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 892, 904-905 [223 

Cal. Rptr. 379] (Terminal Plaza Corp.). 

One court. has described .. < follows the daAger of approving projects 

without first preparing adequate cumulative impact analyses: 

The purpose of this requirement is obvious: consideration of the effects of 

a project cir projects as if no others existed would encourage the piecemeal 

approval of several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment ~d disastrously overburden the man-made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat ·CEQ~s 

man~ate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment 

Las Yirgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. Cmmty if Los Angeles (2d Dist. 1986) 177 Cal. 

App. 3d 300, 306 [223 Cal. Rptr. 18]63 

iv. Two-step Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. The need for cumulative impact 

assessment reflects the fuct that, although a project may cause an "individually limited" or "individually minor" incremental impact that, by itself, is not significant, the 

increment may be "cumulatively considerable," and thus significant,. when viewed 

together with environmental changes anticipated from past, present, and probable 

future projects. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subd. (h)(l) (formerly subd. (i)(1»,64 

15065, subd. (a)(3), 15355, subd. (b). 

A prop" cumulativ~ impactJ (IJta/yJu 

must be pnpaf?d ht.fon a proj~ct gains 

irreuenihk tJ1b11U!7I.trJm. 

(HAPTER XI Substantive Requirements of EIRs 467 
148 


Insert offset folio 115 here 81259.115

168 GUUE nJ CECA 

In ~:'app!ing \..,d~ th('s(~ i~)t.nes., a lead ,lgt:ncy ::;hOllld generally ttf1dt~r· 

take ::1 [wo~ .. tcp J:l3JY!,j,$. 8f( th:s ch:lpk~', :;o::-:tio:1 R2J.\'~ tl~/.;"'l_ tor thrtheT dt:tail Oil 

lilt': :WO-!)i,ClI pnx' ... ·..,:; :..)ft"lmJ\ll~l.ive ir"\p:,CIS ~1<;St>".":ll1t'nt. '!1w FnH (:l.It"!-Itinl1 '.vh..,;the!: 

the .. :;nnh:~l~',1 dlf'C,:-' both tlw,' pnnnsed and '.lJH'1: prnjN't;::-. l .... ou]d 

clllrmlati'v'dy ",ignificml, tt'tllC :W,TC.'l ;u~weJS III ,,,> illquiry in Ihe af1inrmt1vt'. (;-u: ~e(> 

I.)nd qllt:.:Hi()~ is wb(,tht~r 'the p:"npos.::d pn'je:;(s: im'rmtllltrl/ ttfn::lS j,e cUDmlatin·ty 

c:c,)1SkI.cr<lDlc," G:'JJ:fl1!i.nili:~!j·t.;!·.1 Hr.'IttT J.l!:m.;iro:itnnH t.. Cal(filrma N,tS[.UJ'(.rS .o~~-a?n ~:"d 

D:t:t 20t.l::!) 1D3 C;.~.L /\pp. ith ~Jb, 120 )26 Ca:, Rptr. 2d 'i~l: (C§tll!llt.mtJl'.r/r>ra B;;;:'ier 

[:':n},InJ"n!IN?l/! (itnJin) addt';n. T1\11s) :ige;H~i~s ;·;li(htld 11(11 mtH~I.,. ,;-O[tJilafc' the l:lerc~ 

nemnl t~l{>ct :If ~ pn1rOi'cJ P({)jcl:[ dg.:n!1.~11he c:(Il1cctjllt:: impa;:b ,)C ;t!! other :'ekvam 

P1'c,:ie.cts, yielding: the pf()pos~d ptc0ect's "relativc" lrnpact ~'is-l-vis. th~ ~mp~lCts. t,l' Ole 

t..the prc1<cets. Rathe, :n nuking the jr~t r["~ll:rl'd inquil)Y, the k2ci agcli(~y mHst {J(U 

th;~ pR~eL1's incrc-menh: imp~('t to :he anticipated jmp~(;t:i cf~)ther pr~e(';l':i. (.'(NlmHi· 

m~<·/t'!./i'j·t;J n~·tCt·r Sn'mFwlfflFll!, Ju,.,f;rra, 1!13 CD!. Apr. ,hi': :it rp. 117 121, 

it'or c:xamplt~. the i.cfttt :.tg'<":llCY f()i' Prt)iect A nmJ'.t eVtlhmtt~ w'lethe; lh;!: 

pp~ie(:t. in combinaril.l(l \'\'11h J"fOit'ct~ B, C, :.Uld D, \·vould create a Sir;llitlc311t C'11fHl.b· 

dvt;' effect. If80, thc1 d,(~ :lext step is to {'onsider whether Prc:.iect As "incn.:mental" 

G';,mt::lb!ltron to that ('ombin::d Si~TTllnt'<mt (""I.;nml:!t"';c tDlpact would be "cLmnlati'/::.<'y 

e:,1J,',iderabl{'" 'flit, ag("wy .~llfHltilllot tr1erdy cnmp,IT(, the- tmpJcts of Project /\ 

~~l,jnst those of Projects B. C, ~'md l), The required (l,VO"stcr appro;1c-h is evidt.:tlt from 

CEQ.A GHiddines sectioa 1506~1, subdivil'hm (h::n) {formerly 8ubd~v15i(}n C)(I)).~S 

which !itaH~~ that "~W~})tD ;rsst:'$$ing: t\·ht:lber;it cumulative (;'Jt(:'!ct r<::,qu~res an EIR, lilt, 

iFHd agf'Hcy :-;/!;lH con:<.idt'r \Vhr:tIWf !If(" ('l!muhIO\.'(~ nnp:rct 1& stgnifivm1t ar:d \,< .. hetnL't 

(ht~ ~ffe(':1h ufthe l1:"ujeej ~H'e r-unlulati1,.'dy ,"'onf;id~nlhle." A negutn:e $tatt~mcnt ,)fthis 

~attH,; :wo~,)tep [JrincIVle is t'"iJl;;;llt Gum CEQ/\ GuirJelilleo SedtUH 15130. f,llhdivi 

ston (;3)(2), '''''hieh pt{ividr...'::1 that .. ,-wlhcn lilt.;' combined ';;Un1tliaiive impact a,ssoclatCtl 

\-"'tth the p:ojCCt\ :o{:':cmc~1tal cHeet ~md tbe effects of ()~hcr projects is not sig'n:tit:'-;mt, the ErR sbal! brie;ly indicate why the C'!H,Ulbt;vc impac1 is nnt signifkm;( nnd:$ 

not ditlCi[:--..,cd ill Jlutht"T d~fail in the EIR."l)(, 

1: L" p.)~.,!h-k that th~ ·'t~I\f1l\Jbtivc im.j}'.)('t"' of multiple prolcctt fA, B. C, 

Hud D. contim;ing uV.: ('xampk ~l't r()rth ah(we) ""'ill be signH:ea~i, bm ~hat lhe incre~ 

;'!1{'uta.l contJ':butioll t() th:.:,i lm?~1ct from 8. panlc:Ub1Y prqject :/K., PmjxL i\) may UN 

it~dfbr.· "clUnuf~ti",1dy <::'onslder~lbk." Thus. CE<,.lA (;tti~i-cHnl..'3 s~ctjcn 15064. ~Hbtli\,lsiolJ (hjf4) J{mn'!~rly O)(S'f~(·7 stH(!.'i tlwt "rtlhe r;leJ<~ e.;'I;lKH:m't-: of\i,':',;ni{i('ant (,lIrrmlmj\'(~ 

imp-accs t::3u:'lcd hy other prn}l'ct" ~i.I{tne: sh:.:lll IH It cnnMilutt': sllb;t~u,ttal <.;'tid::nce iii-Ht 

the proposed pff~je(t's incremental dfects::\: t Cllmll;ati"dy consiier~ihlt..." 'l1'HF;, it [,,> net 

n!!c(:'~$~ml;' tnte d:al, e,'eft 'Nherc .:umulativc- i:llpaers ;Ito(' $ign~lca!lt, "",:r kv.d of :11-

cr::'nwntal contribution mlJS! h~ deemed cUffil.lbtlvdy considerable. C!Jrnmu'lidts/r.r:l 

Btt!c:r t~l}z;::r'om;'-rnr supra, W3 Cal. App. -it.: rlt F, 12(1, 

Mmen'l-'c!. \\'heft' "I p;Op{l~f',J lll1Jjn~t wlmhl :Hlt.l no ilJ('{~·HH·)}tHIl'~m' 

t;icntion \vhare\-'el' to (1 ~i~llifi,--';:-c"(t CUHHlbt{\-t"- impal.~L the inCYf'liWnl l'iHtnot tw 

z:umLlbt.h<cly cons-:d1;~ta')l:;. CEQA Guideline.'!:, s' 15130. subd. (;((,(: C:a~:l ElR .mould 

nc::A di$cJ.:S5 impac~:; which do not result :a part :ruln the pt'ojt:ct evaluated in tht: 

EIR''); S,lr.,-';.,1 Afo'tlt(,; Chdl'lbr'f ~{C:'t)lmL'rN l,', Crt/ c>l.)i;Nt~'i lH(Jfti;:{! (2::lDi.st. 20(2) 101 

Cit;. A;JP' 4th 7~6, 799 ~!24 C:~d. Rptr. 2d 73 t] (Sar.;/a .11(!T!1;~a Chumhrrt:!.(Commcf(:(.l 

("~dlh! ;I~ zew ~'\,'hcn ;/-4!dtd rll allY (J\lH~r "'lllll n:s.ulu-. in no {'h;l11~{, to th!:: fin·,ll 
149 


Insert offset folio 116 here 81259.116

con!,! ht~ bz"t~er ;Hilig;a~eJ:, \\.'·t~ h::vt:' ncirha 1hz: fc ... (Jltr~'{,~,.., no:- t11t.:: ~cjeiltlik exp(:r~ 

to \:n.~agt·1n -;UCl :1n3.IY-i'iF-, (~lttn if the ~t<ttutorjly prt'!J;(.';ihcd sLin&trd (;H' 

reVt(:W pcrmi!(t'(III~ (I" do 

L{ni~·Yl Hr'rgh!s bl~l')H}i.'f".W,~tt! AJ\'(;otrlttlr.' 1:i- RCgt'fl/J I{l/!!' {}J.t.~ .. Yn:~~}' q,}"(:<'f?/f.l7!!(1 (1 ?8~; <\'l 

Cat 3 • ..1 ~\{)3 pS',~ C~l R:I{L '1~6~-~s 

Thw., "'~(h;;- court d!JI"s paf's upon t~"\G enrn:ctucss \)f tht- EiR's r.-l1YlrOnl1'h_"l1t:,tl c.J[;Ch.;SlO()S, neiy uppJ) its StJH~den(y as illl~'1T!\ittj\'e d'l)cmnem .. "" M, at 

;:<,3t)2 (f;r:Ilt;';1i-[ O)tm,:~, ~" r-i~l' ifI.os .. bt~dr:.j i::'cl Di:-;t. 1( 77) 71 Cd. Apr, 3d 

183,16/) C:lo R!Hr. :~W~J:V) 

]1) ~i CEQ/. as in aoy otht.r ;<;ilf11i-8r prO(:t':{'ding'. -agent'}' fiction;". :m~ 9re~ 

'm::K~c t;) comply Wi"tl applicablt Lv;.'.", until pr(~()f is pr\:scnte:d io the t0nfralY. r-:vid. 

C:),Je. ~ (-,u-1: N;;H<T C1rm!1' <2d Dht. 1<;S3) 

142 C"1. App. 3d 4·14, 4,;: [190 Cll. Rpt" 

OV~'( nc .. ~iei(·n:.llct; to :H;end{~;;:, h()' ..... 'c\.'~r, wi/ere rh:.' hL\.-" has ht~(~n (:t:~­

a~'lpl;e<i_ agl~ncy's ~l$C of aT'] t:1J'Ont·0t1"i ft,tw standard t01l!;t;UteY}1 ftllurl! to ~'TOc:!~d 

in -a manner ft~qa!red by hr\\~. ,'Ckmil}f,.1 Th(' interprt;t<~tiQn ;)11fl .apphc.abilit')< of a sttt~ 

ute :~ .1 qtl~,qif}H of taw rt:'q;ljdn~ an indep(~,1d(~llf (~('t('rlnjni:\tii)n by the re-vle\\"lng 

Fa..!"t i-}':'!ll!!.,7U:; Edrtm.'rlYI1 Gl,'/,1"!C:!: tnc, (,~ i"i£!"-)J Vbdr:.r AW;J;luia t ~ifYJ~'d ~~l}ool Didnit 

(2d Dir.t l(jti~/) 210 Cat /\Pp. 3d I'5S, 165(253 CaL RJllr, H7::.-U .' 

3, WIlat Constitutes d "Prejudicial 

Abuse of Disuelio."l 

l1$ (If em"'-y '20{lS, the CQurt of ,4.~')pel:J districts weft' HOt un.::mlmtll.lfl Wkl 

re~pcct to l10w they g·t~ncl."aHy ddi])(;d \,\,hHt c-vnstitutes a pl'ejDji{1~1! 11bust; of disnt 

OWl u:'!d<.'! CEQ)\, In pnnien!:--lr, :.h(: l"ourth, St!\~{)(HI, anc 1"11ih Di;.>tril'ls rliculated 

theil vie .... v~ ${)trR'what di:1'erc:-Hly, with the <;"it<w of the Hmrth J:"Jd Reeund bdng 

~cmewh~li more dctercmial tn n~.;;pondt::m pub-Ik:: <lgf",o('!e$ than the Fiflh, 

Accl);ding-:o th:: FOllrth Di'itriet, \\':tI.'O a p;,;,tltio:Icr a!It.',b'rf:s that ;1tl ElR faib 10 

Illdude 51.dlil.:'ieDt 111foC11atk'lfj on a p'lnicubl' !3SUe. the rt::;i~\>;Y:ng ('Ollrt shouhl gt':l' 

t~ralJ)' treat '>W;:l all ~!rgument a.& a claim that the E[R is not ~llppo:-t('ci by stlbst:mti.L 

e-vidt'n::--e, r'ather than ,:'3 a cbhn th;H the agency i~H1ed to pr()ce:-ed In the mann:::::'" 

retpiired by ]:1\\-. This m~mtJt'r I {fw!11ing the qw.::~tiot1 tends to emp~;I:;';ZC jlldkilll JdereHCt:~ ;'lll(: thns [<t'~'or re"lundt'nt ~scttd~~. 

In Bmih-'lf'~ny Z' .. ('hiw; Bm/n .4frmif.7lh2111~'{t(T Dl:i/nd {-Hh Din, 1995) 38 CnL 

App. 'ith 16f)1)~ 1617(45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 638] (Bmt:?det!~~,), 11!e pt':titkmcr (:hallclIgt}'l !he 

~\{h;<iuaq' r::tfan EIR rt"l"';1 fllcility d.at would ('n>ntt.: C0mpost filH!1 s!IIJge and cow 

Inanllrt;. a:-guing that the dOtmflent did flni include c(::rtr:dn key ipti)t~rnatimt !vl;)J'C 

spe('i{k~Hy, 1h(:< petitioner'." "arguc-Id] that 'improperly (;xdndillg rt'levm:t tntortnation' 

l!l ;J t~{illlrf': to proceed i:; the m;H11Wr pn"'!vided by la .. v, ,,\'hi(:h eanoot b,:. eXL~USt':! orl 

,he thc.:·ory lh:oIt 'the -dcC',ls!on fJ! the :1gcncy js nevertJlf'lr>~5 supported by the m~lteria! 

wh~ch it (hoB:('n to <;dC(-:liVt4y :nchJdc jn it.s own u;:;>,":(ld: ~The petitjPIlNsl 

l:ludc r:hlt a dt.: novo sHmc;lrd oL"t:vit.'w appJka:' iti. at p, 1616. 

T!\e Cmw u.-.,./.\ppe:ll disaf';reed: 

:)e:e:-milutioll$ in an HIR mwa be upheld if :hey are suppn:-ted ~y 51lbsta.itittl 

evidence: ti te 111tn: ?f1-:'!::ence d c(lldlieting cvidcnK:c in !lH~ ~H~ntmistrative rec.ar(; 
150 


Insert offset folio 117 here 81259.117

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

PROOF OF SERVICE - c.c.P. §§IOl1 - 1013a 

I, the undersigned, declare: I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. 

am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. I am employed by Fitzgerald Abbott & 

Beardsley LLP, located at 1221 Broadway, 21" Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, I am readily familiar with 

this firm's business practice of processing of documents for service, 

On March 29, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of the following document(s): 

PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

on all 'the following interested parties, by causing service by the method indicated below: 

I 

Kamala D. Harris 

Daniel L. Siegel 

James W. Andrew 

Danae J. Aitchison 

Jessica E. Tucker-Mohl 

Office of the Cal,ifornia Attorney General 

1300 I Street, 15 Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: 916-323-1722 

FacsImile: 916-327-2319 

Email: James.Andrew@doj.ca.gov; 

Danae.Aitchison@doj.ca.gov; 

Jessica.TuckerMohl@doj.ca.gov 

James G. Moose 

Sabrina V. Teller 

Remy Moose Manley, LLP 

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: 916-443-2745 

Facsimile: 916-443-9017 

Email: jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com; 

steller@rmmenvirolaw.com 

Attorney for Respondent / Defendant Attorney fOT Respondent / Defendant 

California High Speed RaiiAuthoT_ity"-__ -,-"C",a",li",·foo,,,r-=.:n:::ia:c-oHJg!t Speed Rail A uthority 

U,S, Mail - By placing a c~y of said document(s) in a sealed envelope with postage 

thereon fully prepaidb and epositing said envelope with the U, S, Postal ServIce, 

following this firm's usiness practices, 

Overni~t Deliverv - By placing a copy of said document(s) in a sealed pre-paid 

X overnig t envelope or package and d~ositing said envelope or packa~e today in a box or other facility regularly mamtained y the express service carrier, fo lowing this 

firm's business practices. 

Personal Service - Br; lIersonally delivering said documents~s) in an envelofe or package clearly labe e to identIfy the attorney/party locate at the office(s of the 

itddressee(s) stated above, 

Facsimile - By placing a true copy thereof into a facsimile machine to the fax number 

stated above, as agreei:! upon, in writing, by the parties, 

J129/lJ (28254) #512854,2 

--
151 


Insert offset folio 118 here 81259.118

2 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Electronic Service - By electronically sending a copy of said document(s) to the 

attorney or party as stated above and as agreed upon, in writing, by the parties. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury under laws of the Stale of California that the foregoing 

is true and correct. Executed on March 29, 2013, at Oakland, California. 

AlleenN. 

22 

PETlTlONERS' REPLY BRJEF 3129/lJ (2&254) #;12&542 
152 


Insert offset folio 119 here 81259.119

Footnote 4: Fresno to Bakersfield DEIR/EIS 

Comment Letter by Merced and Madera Farm 

Bureaus, 2013 
153 


Insert offset folio 120 here 81259.120

October 19, 2012 

VIA EMAIL AND MAIL 

Fresno Bakersfield@hsr.ca.gov 

California High Speed Rail Authority 

770 L Street, STE 800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

RE: Fresno to Bakersfield Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS Comment 

Dear CHSflA Staff: 

The Madera County Farm Bureau and the Merced County Farm Bureau are writing to offer comments 

concerning the environmental impact analysis contained in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact 

Report/Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR). As explained more fully below, 

the RDEIR prepared for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section (Section) does not comply with the 

requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) may not approve 

a preferred alternative for the Section until an adequate RDEIR is prepared and circulated for public 

review and comment. 

The 800±mile HST project is comprised of nine sections, each evaluated separately at the project-level. 

While each of these sections, considered in isolation from the rest, might result in some impacts that 

can be reduced to less-than-significant levels after considerable avoidance and mitigation efforts, the 

HST sections will each unavoidably tax the state's limited air, water, agricultural land, and biological 

resources to a potentially significant cumulative extent The final toll taken by this ambitious and 

immense Project on California's environment, public health, natural resources, and economic base may 

not be known for several years or longer, but currently available and substantial evidence shows that 

the effects will be severe. 

Under these unprecedented circumstances, it is even more imperative that this environmental 

document identify and analyze all of the Section's impacts with the utmost degree of accuracy, care and 

detail. It is equally, if not more, imperative that any and all reasonable alternatives that are less 

enVironmentally damaging be presented and discussed as thoroughly as pOSSible, together with any and 

all feasible mitigation measures. In addition, given the rapidly escalating costs for the Initial 

Construction Segment (ICS), of which this Section is but a part, the Authority must provide evidence 

that it has the financial resources to relocate and modify existing infrastructure, purchase right-of-way 

(ROW) properties, construct the track and stations, and pay for agricultural, biological resource and 

air quality mitigation (among others). The strictures of CEQA and the maxims of sound public policy 

and informed environmental planning require nothing less. Based on these concerns, the Madera and 
154 


Insert offset folio 121 here 81259.121

Merced County Farm Bureaus have a strong interest in ensuring that this Section of the Project complies 

with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 

With that said, we must conclude with disappointment that this RDEIR, like the fiR prepared for the 

Merced to Fresno section of the HST project, despite its voluminous length and complexity and attempt 

at recirculation, is so rife with omissions, incomplete analyses, and obsolete information that it simply 

does not even come close to complying with CEQA's rigorous environmental review and mitigation 

standards.' As these comments will demonstrate, the RDEIR is fatally deficient and must be 

substantially revised and recirculated for further public review and comment before it may be finalized.' 

The RDflR does not describe all of the characteristics of the alternatives for the Section. Moreover, as 

explained at length below, the Section will generate a multitude of impacts in a number of impact areas, 

including: agriculture, air quality, public health, socioeconomics and community facilities, water supply, 

water quality, biological resources, and cultural resources - yet the RDEIR does not fully disclose these 

significant impacts. The Section will also cause cumulatively considerable impacts in each of these 

resource areas - but these cumulative impacts have also not been acknowledged. In short, the RDflR 

mischaracterizes, underestimates, or otherwise fails to identify many of thethe Section's direct, indirect 

and cumulative impacts. At the same time, many of the mitigation measures described in the RDEIR will 

not, in fact, mitigate impacts to the extent claimed and in some instances will generate additional 

impacts that are not evaluated. Finally, the RDEIR impermissibly truncates the scope of alternatives 

discussed, and consequently fails to consider reasonable feasible alternative approaches to the Section's 

footprint that would altogether avoid several of the Section's most serious impacts. 

The Authority seems to have taken a cursory approach to impact analysis and mitigation formulation 

because the scope and size of the Section's footprint and effects are so large. But this is precisely when 

a detailed and painstaking analysis is most necessary. 

Below, after a brief summary of applicable legal requirements governing fiR preparation, we present 

our general comments that address analytical flaws that pervade the RDEIR. 

I. THE RDEIR FAilS TO SATISFY CEQA'S PURPOSE AND GOALS 

CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which the RDflR satisfies. First, CEQA is designed to inform 

decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project.' The 

fiR is the "heart" of this requirement.' The fiR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' 

1 The Madera and Merced County Farm Bureaus, along with several other petitioners, have filed a lawsuit 

challenging the EIR prepared for the Merced to Fresno section of the Project. The DEIR for this section suffers 

from many of the same flaws identified in a brief recently filed in that lawsuit. See Attachment 1, Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities In Support of Petitioners' Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Alternative Application for 

Administrative Stay (PI Motion Opening Brief), pp. 8-25 larguments concerning CEQA violations with respect to 

Merced to Fresno DEIR}; see alsa CD containing exhibits referenced in PI Motion Opening Brief, submitted 

separately by our counsel via overnight mail on October 18, 2012. 

) CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1 ) 

, No OiL Inc. v. City of los Angeles ( 1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84 
155 


Insert offset folio 122 here 81259.122

whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they 

have reached ecological points of no return."s The courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance 

of the public's role in the CEQA process -such participation supplies both vitality and legitimacy to the 

environmental review process. 6 An EIR must "include detail sufficient to enable those who did not 

participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the 

proposed project." 

Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by 

requiring feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 7 "The EIR must set forth mitigation measures 

that the decision makers can adopt at the findings stage ofthe planning process.'" The mitigation 

requirement in CEQA has teeth, unlike the more "considerational" mitigation provisions of NEPA. 9 

Under CEQA, a lead agency must mitigate a project's significant impacts to the maximum extent 

feasible. The requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project is similar under 

both CEQA and NEPA. 10 

The RDEIR for the proposed Project fails to comply with these basic requirements. First, the lack of 

complete, concise, clear, accurate and consistent information in the RDEIR precludes an informed 

comparison of the alternatives for this Section and an analysis of the Proposed Action. The 1,600+page 

RDEIR is supported by thousands of pages of technical appendices and supposedly relies on or at least 

tiers off of thousands of pages of first-tier environmental review in two programmatic review 

documents. But the document does not reference these materials with enough precision to enable the 

reader to find the information and analysis that is relied upon or that provides context for this analysis. 

Instead, the reader must attempt to ferret alit this information. The lengthy analysis is far from concise 

or clear. Second, the Authority failed to take a hard look at all of the Section's impacts. The RDEIR does 

not even describe all of the Section's features, and it presents a generalized analysis of many potentially 

significant impacts and conclusory statements concerning the effectiveness of vague mitigation 

measures. Third, the Authority impermissibly limited its alternatives analvsis by failing to consider 

design modifications to each alternative alignment and other alignment options that could 

substantially reduce impacts. 

For these reasons, and as further explained below, the RDEIR precludes a meaningful analysis of the 

Section's impacts and the means devised to avoid or reduce them. The Authority must therefore revise 

the RDEIR and recirculate the revised RDEIR for public review and comment before making a decision 

concerning the Section or the HST project as a whole. 

5 County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795 

6 5ee, e.g., Laurel Heights improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (Laurel 

Heights i). 

1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2)·(3); See also Citizens of Goleta Valley 

v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564; see also laurel Heights i, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 400.) 

'Remy, et aI., Remy, et ai., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (Solano Press, 11th ed., 2006) 

(Guide to CEQA), p. 503. 

'See id. at p. 38 

10 See id. at p. 39 
156 


Insert offset folio 123 here 81259.123

II. GENERAL COMMENTS 

A. The RDEIR Does Not Adequately Tier Off of or Incorporate by Reference the Analysis 

of Two First-Tier Environmental Review Documents. 

The RDEIR supposedly relies upon or at least tiers off of the analyses of two first-tier environmental 

review documents. a The RDEIR does not clearly explain, however, how the PEIRIS for the Bay Area 

sections of the HST updated the analysis from the 2005 Programmatic EIRiS for the entire HST system, 

nor does the RDEIR consistently or clearly explain how its analysis relies upon or derives context from 

either of these two previously prepared documents. With thousands of pages of background analysis to 

sift through, and thousands of pages of project-level analysis and technical reports to review, the public 

is left to wonder how this document fits into the overall analytical structure of this complicated and 

muddled tiering scheme." 

This attempt at tiering and incorporation by reference fails to satisfy (EQA's requirements. "When an 

EIR uses tiering or incorporation, it must give the reader a better road map to the information it intends 

to convey.,,13 The data in an EIR must not only be sufficient in quantity, it must be presented in a 

manner calculated to adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously 

familiar with the details of the project. "Information 'scattered here and there in EIR appendices,' or a 

report 'buried in an appendix, 'is not a substitute for 'a good faith reasoned analysis.14 

The RDEIR does not provide the required summary of issues discussed in the two broader first-tier EIRs, 

nor does it adequately incorporate by reference the discussions from these EIRs. The ROEIR does not 

explain the limited level of analysis conducted at the programmatic level, nor does it describe the 

assumptions that the preparers of the PEIRs relied upon, that have turned out not to be accurate (such 

as the assumption that the Project right-of-way (ROW) could potentially share freight railroad ROWand 

that it could potentially be reduced to a 50-foot-wide ROW). The RDEIR also does not acknowledge that 

the PEIRs did not analyze and instead deferred detailed environmental review for many impacts, 

induding severance impacts to agriculture, to the project level. 

11 See DEIR, pp. 1-1, 1-3, 1-28, 1-30; see a/so Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control 

Bd. (1997) 63 CaLApp.4th 227, 236; see also In re Bay-Delta Etc., 43 Cal.4th at p. 1173 ["Future environmental 

documents may incorporate by reference general discussions from the broader EtR, but a separate EIR is required 

lor later projects that may cause significant environmental effects inadequately addressed in the earlier [EIRI"I, 

citing Guidelines, § 15152(a) & (f). 

12 The reviewer's task is made much more difficult because the links to the Statewide Program EIRJS are not named 

with an informative description of the document. See, e.g., websites for Volumes 1-3 ofthe Statewide Program 

EIRJS, available at: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov!final_pgrm_ eireisrep01i _ voll.aspx, 

http:( !www.cahighspeedrail.ca .gov !finalp rgm _ e ireisrepo rt _ vol2 .aspx,an d 

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.govjfinalprgm_eireisreport_ voI3.aspx, respectively. The reader must open each 

link in order to determine what portion of the analysis the link contains 

t3 Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 443, citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15150, 15153. 

14 Ibid. 

4 
157 


Insert offset folio 124 here 81259.124

The RDEIR also fails to acknowledge that the Authority previously found the HST system as a whole 

would have significant and unavoidable impacts, requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations" 

CEQA requires the Authority to squarely address the Project's contribution to these significant and 

unavoidable impacts.'6 By concluding that many construction-related impacts will be mitigated to lessthan-significant levels and that impacts to biological resources would also be less than significant, 

without acknowledging and addressing the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the HST 

system, the RDEIR obscures impacts rather than reveals them, 

B. Piecemealed Environmental Review 

The Section is part of the larger "Initial Construction Segment" (lCS) that will first be constructed 

using ARRA funds and Proposition lA bond funds, The Authority should have prepared a single DEIR for 

the ICS, rather than splitting the analysis of ICS impacts into two EIRs, In splitting the analysis, the 

Authority failed to disclose the true scope and severity of the impacts to the entire central and lower 

San Joaquin Valley region, in violation of CfQA, 

The RDEIR also failed to analyze the use of the ICS for testing high-speed trains, and the possible 

interim use of the ICS for Amtrak service, These are also forms of piecemealed environmental review, 

C. Information in the RDEIR Concerning the Characteristics of the Proposed Action is 

Incomplete and Inaccurate. 

"An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally 

adequate EIR,,,n Without it, CEQA's objective of fostering public disclosure and informed environmental 

decision'making is stymied, One leading CEQA treatise succinctly describes the problems created by an 

inadequate project description: 

The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy of the EIR's 

analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description is inadequate because it fails 

to discuss the complete project, the environmental analysis will probably reflect the same 

mistake. 18 

The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR," It is impossible for the 

public to make informed comments on a project of unknown or ever-changing proportions. "A curtailed 

15 Compare DEIR, p, 6-3 with Statewide Program EIRJEIS, pp. 7-1- 7-2, 

" Communities for a Better Environment v' California Resources Agency (2002)103 CaLApp.4th 98,124-125 

(CBE) ["Even though a prior EIR's analysiS of environmental effects may be subject to being incorporated in a later 

EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible public officials must still go on the record and explain 

specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts"); see also People 

v, County of Kern (1974) 39 CaLApp,3d 830, 842 [CEQA serves important function of ensuring that "the 

environmental and economic values of [the agency's) elected and appointed officials" are fully disclosed to the 

publici. 

t1 County of Inyo v, City of los Angeles (1977)71 Cai.App.3d 185,193, 

18 Kostka and lischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 12.7, pp. 580-581 (Jan, 2011 

update) (Practice Under CEQA), 

" County of Inyo, 71 Cai.App.3d at 192 

5 
158 


Insert offset folio 125 here 81259.125

or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an 

accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's 

benefit against its environmental costs .... ,,'0 

A project is "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the 

environment, directly or ultimately" ... including, 'the activity which is being approved and which may be 

subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies.:. 11 

The importance of an accurate and complete description of the Project and its environmental impacts is 

especially critical here, given the immense scale of the Project. Construction of the 800±mile HST line 

and operation of HSTs along the line will dramatically impact every aspect of the ecosystem and human 

environments along the entire route and the areas surrounding the ROW. 

The RDEIR also failed to accurately identify all Project characteristics, as required." Project 

characteristics not sufficiently described and considered in the RDEIR include, but are not limited to: 

New or modified transmission lines and substations that will be necessary, in some areas that 

lack existing or sufficient electric infrastructure, to provide power to this Section of the HST 

system and associated new or modified access roads and spur roads; 

New or modified irrigation and drainage facilities along this Section of the HST system that 

would be necessary to accommodate the Project; 

New or modified bridges over streams and rivers necessary for HST line crossings; 

Modified freeway interchanges, ramps and approaches and modified frontage roads for the 

BNSF Alternative (and the other alternatives to the extent these modifications are required); 

Road closures that would be required for each alternative, and any modifications to existing 

roadways that would be required as a consequence of road closures; 

New or modified roadway overpasses along this Section of the HST system that would be 

necessary to accommodate the Project. 

The ROEIR does not describe these major Section characteristics and many more minor characteristics in 

sufficient detail to enable an accurate project-level review of environmental impacts. The 15% level of 

design used as the basis for the ROEIR's impact analysis is insufficient for a project-level review." The 

lack of detail also denies meaningful public participation and compromises responsible decision-making 

by public agencies. The Authority must revise the ROEIR to provide a reasonable, thorough, good faith 

20 id. at pp. 192-193. 

II CEQA Guidelines § 15378{a). (c); see McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143. 

" See Practice Under CEQA, § 12.8, pp. 581-582. 

" As stated in the PI Motion Opening Brief, the Authority's predecessor agency, the Intercity High Speed Rail 

Commission, stated that at least a 35% level of design would be necessary to complete environmental review. 

6 
159 


Insert offset folio 126 here 81259.126

and objective presentation of the Section's characteristics, the qualities of the affected environment, 

and the respective environmental consequences of each alternative. 

The discussion concerning the construction plan for the Section is also inadequate. For example, the 

RDEIR does not disclose the locations of construction staging areas and concrete and asphalt batch 

plants. In addition, discussions concerning preconstruction activities fail to mention the preconstruction 

surveys for sensitive species that will be required pursuant to mitigation measures. As we've learned 

from the Merced to Fresno Section, a larger amount of preconstruction staging area acreage is also 

required; a fact that is entirely omitted from the Summary Report or in the Summary Analysis of total 

acres impacted. 

Without an adequate and thorough project description that includes all components and characteristics 

of a proposed project, the lead agency cannot conduct an adequate analysis of project impacts, propose 

adequate mitigation measures or meaningfully evaluate project alternatives. For example, the Authority 

has not analyzed the impacts associated with additional components of the Section discussed above. 

Potentially significant impacts not identified or evaluated in the RDEIR include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

- Widespread Severance of Agricultural Parcels: The RDEIR includes a footnote regarding the method 

used for determining the project's total effect on agricultural land lost for production." This method 

includes a broad assumption that neighboring land owners will purchase some (or most, the explanation 

is unclear) remnant agricultural parcels and that remnant land is therefore not subject to inclusion in the 

project's total agricultural footprint. Due to an inadequate project description, it is impossible to 

confirm this assumption or even for the reader to see which parcels weren't included in the project's 

overall footprint and why. 

-Water Quality: Access roads and spur roads will likely be built along the transmission line routes and 

may be required along the portions of the Section that lie outside existing transportation corridors. 

These roads will impact natural drainage patterns. All HST alternatives will also impact natural drainage 

patterns, and while the RDEIR acknowledges this, it fails to specifically describe the "in-stream" and 

upland work required at and near water crossings and does not address other more minor modifications 

to existing drainage systems. The transmission line roads and HST alternative rights-of-way will cause 

unaddressed impacts to water quality. 

The RDEIR must identify, evaluate and mitigate, where feasible, all of the potentially significant impacts 

associated with all Project features, including those identified above. 

" See DEIR, p. 3.14-8. 

7 
160 


Insert offset folio 127 here 81259.127

C. The RDEIR Underestimates the Section's Direct and Indirect Impacts to Agricultural 

Lands. 

1. The RDEIR Fails to Clearly Explain and Define Methodology for Evaluating the 

Project's Impacts to Agricultural Lands. 

The RDEIR describes the methods used for evaluating the Project's impacts to agricultural 

lands. With respect to the calculation of permanent conversion of Important Farmlands to 

nonagricultural use, the RDEIR states: 

[Tlhe acreage for the project footprint for each alternative was quantified and identified 

as being permanently converted to HST use. In addition, analysts examined farmland 

severance on a parcel-by-parcel basis for each alternative to identify where severance 

would create two parcels, and result in remainder parcel(s) that would be too small or 

too physically constrained to be farmed economically. The quantity of the noneconomic remainder parcels was then added to the footprint quantity to identify total 

Important Farmland converted to nonagricultural use for each alternative." 

This explanation and the accompanying footnote do not provide any information concerning 

the analysts' methods for determining which "remainder parcel(s) were too small to be farmed 

economically." Instead of clarifying this issue, a subsequent section that analyzes the Project's impacts 

resulting from permanent conversion and parcel severance further confounds it by using undefined and 

variable terms such as "large agricultural properties," "small remainder parcels," "usable and unusable 

remainders," "smallest property remainders," and "non-economic remnants." This section also fails 

to explain the criteria employed to determine whether a small remainder parcel would be "farmable" 

or be "too small to maintain economic activity." In fact, nowhere in Chapter 3.14 does the RDEIR 

explain how analysts arrived at which remainder parcels were "small remainder parcels," "too small to 

be farmed economically," or "unusable" and which remainder parcels were "large agricultural 

properties," "of sufficient size to maintain economic activity," "farmable" or "usable." The RDEIR must 

explain how the analysts approached this critical component of the evaluation of the Section's impacts 

to agricultural land. Specifically, the RDEIR must reveal the methods employed by analysts when 

determining which remainder parcels were noneconomic/unusable versus economic/usable. This 

explanation must describe all factors that played into the analysts' determination of usability versus unusability. We recommend that the revised RDEIR identify the number of severed parcel remainders 

that are less than 40 acres in size and quantify the number of these parcels that could be farmed 

economically and those that could not. This explanation should also specifically describe the reasons 

for why a parcel remainder was determined to be farmable. 

The failure to fully explain and define key facets of the methodology used by analysts to 

evaluate the Project's impacts on agricultural lands makes it is impossible for the public to evaluate 

whether conclusions in the RDEIR are supported by carefully reasoned analysis as required by CEQA. 

This is particularly important since the RDEIR concludes that each of the HST Alternatives "would have 

15 DEIR, p. 3.14.8. 

8 
161 


Insert offset folio 128 here 81259.128

negligible effects from severing large farm parcels because severance of these parcels would not result 

in permanent conversion of farmland to a nonagricultural use,"" Without a clear definition of what 

constitutes a "large farm parcel," it is impossible to verify the evidentiary support for this conclusion, 

The RDEIR must therefore be revised to clearly explain the analysts' approach for determining the 

Segment's impacts to agricultural lands -least dire legal ramifications ensue should this impact go 

unanalyzed, 

Finally, the analysis identifies a technical working group that is studying specific issues related 

to agriculture -- specifically, the Project's impacts to "confined animal facilities, agricultural equipment, 

induced wind, agricultural infrastructure, and irrigation systems,"" These impacts must be analyzed 

now, in the RDEIR, By relying on some unidentified working group's analysis of these impacts, the 

Authority is impermissibly deferring the impact analysis that it is reguired to conduct in this RDEIR, In 

addition, by relying on a future study, the RDEIR is attempting to tier off of a future study, a procedure 

specifically rejected by the California Supreme Court in the Vineyard decision, 

2. The Analysis Makes False, or at Least Unsupported Assumptions Regarding the 

Section's and Project's Affects on Agricultural Land Conversion 

Unfortunately, as the RDEIR points out, there has been a long trend in the San Joaquin Valley of 

agricultural land conversion," The Madera and Merced Farm Bureaus, as well as other farm bureaus 

and organizations, have worked tirelessly for years to prevent this phenomenon, In recent years, in 

part due to our efforts and also due to the severe recession and housing market bust, the trend has 

slowed and in many areas of the valley has completely stopped (see Attachment A, Central Valley 

Farmland Trust Presentation), There is mounting evidence that the Section and the Project as a whole 

could exacerbate the problem of farmland conversion, In addition, as we've learned from the Merced 

to Fresno Section, the DEIR for that Section specifically eliminated an alignment alternative, A-3, from 

consideration because the alignment was growth inducing, " 

The RDEIR asserts, without any evidentiary support, that the Section would slow farmland 

conversion that would otherwise occur to accommodate future population growth, This unsupported 

statement relies on false or at least questionable assumptions, First, SB 375 and other laws recently 

enacted may already lead to reduced land conversion. Second, the RDEIR does not provide any 

"We note that the DEIR does not identity the division between large and small farm parcels and that this 

conclusion is conspicuously silent with respect to the effects from severing small farm parcels, 

"DEIR, p, 3.14-9. 

"See Attachment A, American Farmland Trust, Presentation to California Department of food and Agriculture 

2012 

29 Merced to Fresno DEIR, August 2011, p.2-20 ["",Those alternatives that were not carried forward had greater 

direct and indirect environmental impacts and potential to cause undesirable growth patterns over those 

alternatives that closely follow existing transportation corridors, In the preliminary Alternatives Analysis, Western 

Madera (A3) and UPRR!BNSF Hybrid (A4) alternatives were removed from further consideration because they 

departed from existing transportation corridors, thereby causing new transportation corridors among highly 

productive agricultural lands, Doing so would have the potential to reduce the viability of surrounding farml;mds, 

giving way to other uses such as other transportation and utility infrastructure that could result in unwanted and 

unplanned growth patterns."l. 

9 
162 


Insert offset folio 129 here 81259.129

assurances that the Section or the Project would limit future growth to areas around planned stations. 

It is quite conceivable, and even likely, that the Project and Section could encourage growth around 

stations and in rural areas surrounding cities. In fact, due to the Section's noise, aesthetic and other 

impacts, the Section may actually prompt accelerated growth in areas distant from any approved 

alignment. 

3. The Analysis Underestimates the Section's Impacts from So-Called Temporary 

Use of Agricultural Land and Temporary Utility and Infrastructure Interruption. 

The RDEIR concludes, without evidentiary support, that temporary use of agricultural lands 

during the prolonged construction period would not result in any significant impacts to these lands. 

The conclusion relies on the assumption that these lands would be "restored to as close to its preconstruction condition as possible."lD This assumption is problematic for a few reasons. First, 

restoration 'as close as possible' is not the same as full restoration - in fact, it's a meaningless standard. 

What if restoration is not possible at all, is the Authority off the hook? Second, this is an unsupported 

assumption, it's not a requirement. To have teeth, this assumption should be turned into a mitigation 

requirement that includes performance sta nda rds. 

The perfunctory analysis regarding the impacts to utility and infrastructure interruption during 

construction is completely inadequate. The RDEIR assumes away the potential widespread impacts by 

stating they will be resolved during the appraisal process." These disruptions may result in the longterm reductions in the productivity of agricultural lands. As such, they must be analyzed in the RDEIR 

and the significant impacts must be mitigated. 

4. Inadequate and Incomplete Discussion of Feasible Mitigation Measures 

As previously discussed with respect to the inadequate measures proposed to mitigate the 

impacts to traffic, air quality and biological resources, CEQA mandates that an EIR contain feasible 

mitigation measures that are capable of reducing the identified significant impacts to levels that are 

less-than-significant. Only under limited circumstances mayan agency defer the formulation of 

mitigation measures, and even then, the agency must commit to mitigating the impacts using specific 

performance standards. In this case, the RDEIR' discussion of mitigation measures to minimize impacts 

to agricultural lands is inadequate. 

(a) Measure Requiring Preservation of Agricultural Land is Inadequate 

Ag-MMUl requires that agricultural conservation easements be established in the "same 

agricultural regions as the impacts occur." The phrase "agricultural regions," however, is not defined. 

"Agricultural regions" could refer to agricultural lands in the immediate vicinity of the agricultural land 

impacted, or it could refer to agricultural lands within the counties of Merced, Madera, and Fresno, or 

it even could pertain to the entire Central Valley. 

" DEtR, p. 3.14-41. 

31 DEIR, p. 3.14-43. 

10 
163 


Insert offset folio 130 here 81259.130

Clarification of the phrase "agricultural regions" is particularly important given the essential 

roles agriculture serves in the region that will be impacted by the Segment. The RDEIR acknowledges 

that the Central Valley is the state's largest agricultural area and that Merced, Madera, and Fresno 

counties are some of the most agriculturally productive counties. The RDEIR further acknowledges 

that conversions of Important Farmland in each of these counties is occurring despite policies to 

protect such lands. As it presently reads, it is impossible to determine whether Ag-MMtll will 

sufficiently preserve local agricultural lands of similar quality and quantity of agricultural lands that 

would be converted by the Segment. Accordingly, this mitigation measure must be revised to define 

"agricultural regions" as areas near the selected alternative route with productive agricultural lands of 

similar quality to the lands impacted by the Segment. 

(b) Program to Consolidate Non-Economic Remnants is Inadequate and 

Unenforceable. 

The Authority has changed what was Ag-MMtl2 into a so-called project design feature." Please 

explain why this measure was changed in this way. We urge the Authority to restore this measure -- it 

must be an enforceable mitigation measure with performance standards and accountability. 

This design feature, which is now unenforceable but is still supposedly required, calls for 

creation of a farmland consolidation program to sell non-economic remnant parcels to neighboring 

landowners for consolidation with adjacent property to foster continued agricultural use on remnant 

parcels. First, as discussed above with respect to the methodology for evaluating the Project's impacts 

on agricultural resources, the term "non-economic remnant parcels," among other terms used in the 

analysis, needs to be defined and described. Without such definition, the proposed reach, scope, and 

potential effectiveness of this consolidation program is ambiguous. 

Furthermore, as previously noted with respect to many of the proposed biological resource 

mitigation measures, the program lacks performance standards. Implementing this measure could 

easily be determined to be infeasible with respect to many of the "non-economic remnant parcels." 

The RDEIR must include performance standards to ensure the consolidation program sufficiently 

promotes continued agricultural uses. In addition, the program should operate for more than just a 

mere S years after construction. Rather, it should operate until all remnant parcels currently in 

agricultural production are transferred to adjacent landowners or are otherwise confirmed to be 

productive agricultural lands. 

D. The RDEIR Fails to Consider the Section's Cumulative Impacts to Agricultural Lands. 

The chapter concerning the Section's cumulative impacts is silent with respect to the 

destruction of agricultural lands that will be caused by neighboring sections of the Project, including the 

Merced to Fresno section, the San Jose to Merced Section, and the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section. 

Cumulatively, the Project will result in widespread destruction of farmland, and will cause indirect 

impacts to parcels located even miles away from the Project's ultimate alignment. The Statewide PEIR 

31 See Resolution 12·20, May 3, 2012. 

11 
164 


Insert offset folio 131 here 81259.131

did not consider severance impacts to agriculture, and did not consider the impacts of widespread road 

closures. Because the analysis for this Section considers impacts to agricultural lands in isolation, it 

violates CEQA's requirement to analyze and mitigate a project's contribution to significant cumulative 

impacts. 

E. Mitigation Described in the RDElR Concerning the Characteristics of the Proposed 

Action is Incomplete, Inaccurate, and are Not Enforceable. 

The RDEIR states in Section 3.1.4 Legal Authority to Implement 0ffsite Mitigation that "offsite" 

mitigation would occur on, " ... property not owned by the Authority," and "would require working with 

the property owners involved." The Section goes on to say that this type of mitigation is outside the 

Authority's control and is not guaranteed to come to fruition. 

A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility." To the extent 

that the Section results in significant impacts, the Authority must ensure that feasible measures are 

defined and enforceable 34 By the Authority's own admission, this mitigation strategy -which is the 

primary method the Authority will rely upon to reduce the significant impacts to agriculture - is 

dependent on variables outside the Authority's ability to control. The practice of securing offsite 

mitigation is an incredibly long and arduous one where multiple permitting agencies must signal their 

approval of lands to be purchased. The practical application of using theoretical mitigation is not 

accurate or legal. 

In addition, mitigation measures proposed in the RDEIR are inadequate. For example: 

Mitigation Measure SO-S: Provide access modifications to affected farmlands. In cases 

where partial-property acquisitions result in division of agricultural parcels, the 

Authority will evaluate with property owner input the effectiveness of providing 

overcrossings or undercrossings of the HST track to allow continued use of agricultural 

lands and facilities. This would include the design of overcrossings or undercrossings to 

allow farm equipment passage. (Refer to Section 3.14, Agricultural Lands, for additional 

information.) This mitigation measure will be effective because it will maintain access to 

farmlands for farmers whose property is bisected. 

This mitigation measure is inadequate because evaluating the effectiveness of overcrossings or 

undercrossings would not ensure that access to bisected farmlands is maintained. (I.e., the measure 

"See, e.g., Kings County Farm Bureau, 22 I CaLApp.3d at p. 727 [finding groundwater purchase agreement 

inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available I; see 

also Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cai.App.4th 1099, 1116 ["no substantial evidence [in EIRI that the 

mitigation measures are feasible or effective in remedying the potentially significant problem of decline in water 

levels of neighboring wells"J.) 

14 See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4{a)(1 )-(2); see also Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (lOOS) 131 

Cai.AppAth 777,793-794; see also Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 

1011, I 028-1029 (SOCA); See also Federation of Hillside & Canyon ASSOCiations v. City of los Angeles (2000) 83 

Cal.AppAth 1252, 1262. 

12 
165 


Insert offset folio 132 here 81259.132

does not guarantee access would be maintained after evaluating crossings, the Authority could 

determine that they would not be effective, or are otherwise not feasible, etc.) 

Furthermore, the rapidly escalating costs of building the ICS calls into question the financial feasibility 

of mitigation measures, including the expensive measures required for agricultural, biological resources 

and air quality impacts. According to information located on the California High Speed Rail Authority's 

website, task orders associated with construction costs for relocating and modifying existing 

infrastructure within the 29-mile stretch covered under Construction Package 1 (CPl) is more than $1.5 

[Jillion. This estimated cost; extrapolated to the entire 130-mile IC$ is almost $7 Billion. This amount 

already exceeds the $6 Billion the Authority has estimated for constructing the entire ICS, and it does 

not even include the costs associated with purchasing ROW properties, the costs of building the tracks 

and stations. and the costs of mitigation. 

Please provide evidence that the entire ICS can be built at the cost advertised in the Revised 2012 

Business Plan and that all mitigation measures listed in the RDEIR can be accomplished within this 

budget. If the mitigation measures are not feasible, the Authority will need to go on the record that it 

is approving a Section that will have significant and unavoidable impacts to important resources. The 

Authority must be held accountable for any and all unmitigated destruction that may result from its 

decisions. 

Finally, the RDEIR fails to require mitigation measures to address identified impacts. The RDEIR vaguelY 

identifies mitigation measures that "may be applied to the project," The description of these measures 

does not provide enough detail to determine their requirements of efficacy. As discussed above, CEQA 

requires that the RDEIR include clearly defined and enforceable mitigation measures." Vaguely 

identifying measures that mayor may not be applied to the Section does not suffice. 

III. THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES IS INDADEQUA TE. 

"[A)n EIR for any project subject to CEQA review must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the 

project."J6 Among other requirements, CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate "alternatives that might 

eliminate or reduce the Project's adverse environmental effects."n Under some circumstances, a lead 

agency must evaluate alternative sites to the proposed project location. As a leading CEQA treatise 

explains: 

Where significant effects can be lessened or avoided by choosing another site, 

discussing such an option within an EIR provides information by which the approving 

agency can effectuate CEQA's substantive mandate to lessen or avoid significant impacts 

where feasible.'" 

"See CEQA GUidelines, § 15126.4(a)(J )-(2). 

"Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a). 

(f). 

" See Friends of the Eel River v. S@oma County Water Agency (2003) 108 CaLAppAth 859, 873. 

"Remy, et ai., Guide to CEQA, pp. 581-582. 

13 
166 


Insert offset folio 133 here 81259.133

The RDEIR fails to satisfy these fundamental CEQA requirements because it fails to consider alternative 

designs for each alternative that would reduce or avoid identified impacts and it fails to consider an 

alternative alignment on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley (along the 1-5 corridor). The RDEIR 

must be revised to include (1) alternative designs for the 6 HST alternatives already evaluated and (2) a 

west valley alternative. 

A. The Authority Must Consider an Alternative Design that Reduces Impacts to 

Agriculture. 

The Authority must consider alternative designs that reduce impacts to agricultural activities. As 

discussed above, the Project will impact this area in a number of ways. 

The Authority should consider an alternative design that avoids, or Significantly minimizes, these 

impacts. 

For example, the Authority should consider an elevated track for alignments that cross productive 

farmlands. Such a design would reduce the impacts caused by parcel severance and road closures. 

B. The Authority Has Failed to Consider a Reasonable Western Valley Alternative to the 

Six HST Alignments. 

The RDEIR must also be revised to more carefully consider an alternative alignment along the western 

side of the San Joaquin Valley, in the vicinity of Interstate 5 and the California Aqueduct. 

An 1-5 Alternative alignment would be superior to the proposed HST alignments for a number of 

reasons, for example: 

the western side of the valley receives substantially less rainfall than the eastern side and also 

has less agriculturally productive soils, fewer wetlands and waterways and may have less 

abundant wildlife; 

the 1-5 corridor through the valley is removed from population centers and there is therefore 

much less existing infrastructure, community facilities and roadways that would be disturbed by 

the HST system; 

a western alignment would require less engineered grade separations, elevated track and other 

elaborate and expensive infrastructure; 

stations could be situated in areas near but not within population centers and could incorporate 

connections with efficient local shuttle and/or transit systems, thereby attracting significant 

ridership while avoiding impacts to the built environment and to people already living and 

working in urban areas; 

routing the HST alignment within or adjacent to the 1·5 corridor and including fewer 

strategically located stations would reduce the travel time between the major metropolitan 

areas, thereby improving the HST system's performance. 

14 
167 


Insert offset folio 134 here 81259.134

The brief explanation in the Alternatives chapter concerning the Authority's rejection of an 1-5 

Alternative is conciusory and lacks supporting evidence. 

The Statewide EIR/S considered a west of SR 99 ("W99") alternative, but eliminated this alternative from 

further consideration for a number of reasons, including its distance from urban centers and its 

perceived increased environmental impacts. 

There is little to no evidence in the record to support these conclusions, however. If properly designed 

and strategically located, and if linked to existing and/or improved transit service, HST stations located 

outside of downtown areas and population centers could still serve populations located throughout the 

San Joaquin Valley. Such an alternative would also provide similar reductions to vehicle miles traveled 

and associated reduced traffic and air emissions as the proposed HST alternatives. In addition, because 

the 1-5 Alternative would be further west than the W99 alternative, and would follow an existing 

freeway right-of-way, its impacts to agriculture and natural resources would likely be less than the W99 

alternative. Finally, an 1-5 alignment that does not travel through population centers and across 

agriculturally productive rural areas would reduce many Section impacts, as compared to the HST 

alternatives analyzed in the RDEIR. 

Under CEQA, the Authority has the burden of demonstrating that an 1-5 Alternative is not feasible." 

Because an 1-5 Alternative appears to be feasible, would satisfy many of the project objectives and 

would likely result in fewer environmental impacts, the Authority must evaluate this alternative in a 

revised ROEIR. 

19 See Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336,1351-52 ["Since CEQA charges 

the agency, not the applicant, with the task of determining whether alternatives are feaSible, the circumstances 

that led the applicant in the planning stage to select the project for which approval is sought and to reject 

alternatives cannot be determinative of their feasibility. The lead agency must independently participate, review, 

analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith"), citing Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736; see 

also Center for Biological Diversity v. County olSan Bernardino (20 I 0) 185 Cal.App.4th 866,883 ["Even as to 

alternatives that are rejected, however, the 'EIR must explain why each suggested alternative either does not 

satisfy the goals of the proposed project, does not offer substantial environmental advantages[,l or cannot be 

accomplished."'I. quoting Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of !nyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437,1457. 

15 
168 


Insert offset folio 135 here 81259.135

IV: CONCLUSION 

The RDEIR must be revised to fully describe the project setting, the project alternatives, the impacts 

from the project, mitigation and a broader range of alternatives; and the revised RDEIR must be 

recirculated for public review and comment, as required by CEQA. We respectfully urge the Authority to 

do so prior to taking any action of any kind on this Section of the HST Project. 

Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require any further information in support of 

these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Rogers 

President, Madera County Farm 8ureau 

MADERA COUNTY 

16 

JeanOkuye 

President, Merced County Farm Bureau 

-
169 


Insert offset folio 136 here 81259.136

Footnote 6: CHSRA 2012 Business Plan 

pp.3-5 
170 


Insert offset folio 137 here 81259.137

[Editor's note: The "California High-Speed Rail Program 

Revised 2012 Business Plan" issued by the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority can be found online at 

http://www.hsr.ca.gov / docs/about/business p lans/BPlan 

2012 rpt.pdf.] 
171 


Insert offset folio 138 here 81259.138

Footnote 7: Hanna Declaration Letter, 

October 2012 
172 


Insert offset folio 139 here 81259.139

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

BARRY H. EPSTEIN #104402 

JASON W. HOLDER #232402 

FITZGERALD ABBOTT & BEARDSLEY LLP 

1221 Broadway, 21 s, Floor 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: 510- 451-3300 

Facsimile: 510-451-1527 

Email: bepstein@fablaw.com;jholder@fablaw.com 

Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs: County of Madera, 

Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced County Farm 

Bureau, Preserve OUT Heritage, Chowchilla Water 

District, and Fagundes Parties 

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 

(GOVERNMENT CODE 6103) 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO - GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE 

10 COUNTY OF MADERA, et aI., I Lead Case No.: 34-2012-80001 I65-CUWM-GDS 

II 

12 vs. 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

13 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Respondents and Defendants. 

CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, a California 

municipal corporation, 

Petitioner and Plainti fr, vs. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants. 

TIMELESS INVESTMENT, INC., et al. 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants. 

Cases Consolidated for Case Management, 

Briefing and Trial Purposes Only With: 

Case Nos.: 34-2012-80001166-CU-WM-GDS 

34-2012-8000 1168-CU-WM-GDS 

DECLARATION OF MAKRAM HANNA IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 

APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

STAY 

Hearing on Motion: 

Date: Nov. 16,2012 

Time: I :30 p.m. 

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: 

THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY FRA WLEY 

DEPARTMENT 29 

HANNA DECLARATION ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 

5/2J/13 (2R254) #"P8626 I 
173 


Insert offset folio 140 here 81259.140

I, Makram Hanna, declare as follows: 

2 l. I am the managing member of Center Point LLC. I make this Declaration in 

3 support of the Petitioners' Motions for Preliminary Injunction I Application for Administrative 

4 Stay. Except as to mattcrs stated on information and belief, I have personal knowledge ofthc 

matters stated herein and if called as a witness could and would testify thereto, and as to 

6 matters stated on information and belief, I am informed and believe them to be true. 

7 2. I have operated Center point LLC as both a land development and a farming 

8 entity for the past 8 years. As a managing member ofa farming operation I am familiar with 

9 business practices associated planting, harvesting cyclical maintenance cycles and related 

10 accounting practices. As an operator of a land devclopment entity, I am fam iliar with business 

II practices associated with permitting, land entitlements, engineering, environmental studies and 

12 compliance, and related accounting practices. We own and operate businesses along Avenue 

13 12 thrue Avenue 9 in Madera, California, specifically APN Numbers 047-240-003, 047-130-

14 022-023, -024, -025, -026, -027, -028, -029, -030, -31 (the ·'Properties"). 

15 3. The Properties arc within the right-of-way ("ROW") for the Merced to Fresno 

16 section ("Section") of the High-Speed Rail project, and are within the 29-mile long stretch of 

17 the ROW within the area covered by "Construction Package I" ("CP!"). where the California 

18 High-Speed Rail Authority ("Authority") has announced its intention to purchase ROW 

19 properties, including portions, or all of some, of our Properties and begin construction in early 

20 2013. Attached as Exhibit I is a map trom the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") 

21 depicting the ROWand my properties (fHR, Tech. App 2-8, pages 149-153.70-71). 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. 2009, my company obtained two operating loans. one for $\,050,000 for 

equipment and land preparation, and the other for $1,500.000.00 to purchase trees, plant trees, 

and develop an almond orchard along Avenue I!, APN 047-240-003. The adjacent 

construction activities for CP I may cause fugitive dust and water interruptions, and may 

invo!ve the transport, storage and operation of earth moving and other construction equipment. 

These activities and their consequences may impinge on our ability to perform regular 

l. HANNA DECLARATION ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

5/23/13 (2825-1-) #478626 1 
174 


Insert offset folio 141 here 81259.141

maintenance on this parcel and to harvest the orchard. This in turn may interfere with our 

2 ability to repay the loans. 

5. In addition to the farming property mentioned above, Center Point LLC owns a 

4 308 acre industrially zoned area (APNs 047-130-022-023. -024, -025, -026, -027, -028, -029,-

5 030, and 31) that the ROW will bifurcate entirely. The County of Madera has issued tentative 

6 map approvals, and final engineering design approvals for this industrially zoned area. When 

7 built, this partially permitted development will house a heavy agricultural maintenance 

8 equipment manufacturing facility. This area is scheduled to receive its final land entitlements 

9 and approvals from the County in the fall of20 13, at whieh point my company intended to 

10 begin selling or leasing sections ofthe property to appropriate business entities. I estimate that 

11 value of this industrial property to be approximately $100,000,000.00. Implementing the 

12 Section would destroy this investment and result in the loss of my company's tremendous 

13 efforts over several years to develop the industrial property. 

14 6. The earth moving equipment would likely create a safety hazard during pre15 harvest and harvest activities. Surveys and environmental studies have been done illegally on 

16 this property and ifany more occur my operating loans could be jeopardized based on frequent 

17 disruptions to my cyclical maintenance activities. 

18 7. Ifthe Authority proceeds with its plans to purchase our Properties, including the 

19 industrial area, whether in their entirety, or as remnant pieces, lenders will not provide new 

20 loans for the upcoming growing season and the County will not issue its final approvals on the 

21 industrial area. Without a loan, our orchard property will not have the financial resources to 

22 operate for the season. Without the final entitlements from the County, the industrial area will 

23 not come to fruition. Regardless of whether the Authority decides to purchase all or some of 

24 my properties, my business plan for both my farming operations and the industrial area will be 

25 severely impacted. 

26 

27 

28 

8. Preventing our operation for a season will be a severe temporary impact. but it 

could also result in permanent or at least long-term impacts. Removing part or all of an almond 

2. 

HANNA DECLARATION ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMI"<ARY IN.lUNC nON I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

5!n/13(28254)#4786261 
175 


Insert offset folio 142 here 81259.142

orchard from production for even one season would kill trees and demolish the long term 

2 investment. This would do permanent harm to my company's tInancial stability. lfwe do not 

3 have any trees for collateral, we cannot repay the loan, 

4 l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 

5 foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed this _ day of October, 

6 2012 at Madera, California. 

7 

8 Makram Hanna 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAN~A DECLARATION ISO ! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

5/23/1 J (28254) #478626 I 
176 


Insert offset folio 143 here 81259.143

Footnote 8: Petitioner's Preliminary Injunction 

Brief,2012 
177 


Insert offset folio 144 here 81259.144

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

BARRY H. EPSTEIN #104402 

JASON W. HOLDER #232402 

EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 

(GOVERNMENT CODE 6103) 

FITZGERALD ABBOTT & BEARDSLEY LLP 

1221 Broadway, 21 st Floor 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: 510- 451-3300 

Facsimile: 510-451-1527 

Email: bepstein@fablaw.com;jholder@tablaw.com 

Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs: County of Madera. 

Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced County Farm 

Bureau, Preserve Our Heritage, Chowchilla Water 

District, and Fagundes Parties 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO - GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE 

COUNTY OF MADERA, et aI., 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et aI., 

Respondents and Defendants. 

CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, a California 

municipal corporation, 

Petitioner and Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY, et al.. 

Respondents and Defendants. 

TIMELESS INVESTMENT, INC., et al. 

Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Lead Case No.: 34-2012-80001165-CUWM-GDS 

Cases Consolidated for Case Management, 

Briefing and Trial Purposes Only With: 

Case Nos.: 34-2012-80001166-CU-WM-GDS 

34-2012-8000 1168-CU-WM-GDS 

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 

AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT m' 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION AND ALTERNATIVE 

APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

STAY 

Hearing on Motion / Application: 

Date: Nov. 16,2012 

Time: I :30 p.m. 

ASSIGNED fOR ALL PURPOSES TO: 

THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY FRA WLEY 

DEPARTMENT 29 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

25 AUTHORITY. et aI., 

26 Respondents and Defendants. 

27 

28 

CORRFCTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 1012/12 (28254} #477760 3 
178 


Insert offset folio 145 here 81259.145

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

L INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 2 

A. Project Background, Environmental Review and Approval ................................ 2 

B. Project Implementation ........................................................................................ 6 

III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 7 

A. Legal Standard ..................................................................................................... 7 

B. The Court Should Issue a Preliminary Injunction ................................................ 8 

1. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Prevail on the Merits ......................................... 8 

(a) CEQA Violations ......................................................................... 8 

(I) Inadequate Project Description ........................................ 9 

(2) Piece-mealed Environmental Review ............................ 13 

(3) Failure to Establish an Accurate Environmental 

Baseline for Measuring the Section's Impacts ............... 14 

(4) Improper Deferral of Impact Analysis ........................... 15 

(5) Improper Deferral of Mitigation .................................... 19 

(6) Failure to Analyze Secondary Impacts Caused 

by Traffic Impact Mitigation .......................................... 20 

(7) Inadequate Mitigation for Agricultural Impacts ............ 20 

(8) Inadequate Cumu lative Impacts Analysis ...................... 2 I 

(9) Failure to Respond to All Significant Points 

Raised in Comments ...................................................... 22 

(10) Failure to Recirculate EIR .............................................. 23 

(II) Improper Use of Errata and Addendum to FEIR ........... 24 

(b) Violation of the Open Meeting Act... ......................................... 25 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y I O/2fl2 (28254) #477766.1 
179 


Insert offset folio 146 here 81259.146

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

[V. 

2. The Hann to Petitioners if a Preliminary Injunction Is Denied 

Outweighs Any Potential Hann to the Authority from Its 

Issuance .................................................................................................. 27 

(a) Petitioners and the Public Will Suffer Substantial 

Interim Hann in the Absence of Preliminary Injunctive 

Relief. ......................................................................................... 28 

(1) Adverse and Unmitigated Interim Impacts .................... 28 

(2) Failure To Comply With Public Interest Laws .............. 30 

(3) Economic Impacts .......................................................... 31 

(4) Ongoing Waste of Taxpayer Funds ................................ 31 

(b) Respondents Will Not Be Unduly Harmed by a 

Preliminary Injunction ............................................................... 32 

C. The Court Should Waive Bond or Impose Only a Nominal Bond .................... 33 

D. Alternatively, a Stay Should Issue ..................................................................... 34 

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 35 

ii. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJU0JCTION ! ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 10/2/! 2 (28254) #4777663 
180 


Insert offset folio 147 here 81259.147

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Ahlgren v. Carr 

(1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 248 ............................................................................................. 28 

Bakersfield Citizens for Local Conlrol v. City of Bakersfield 

(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 ......................................................................................... 33 

Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Com'rs 

(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 ........................................................................................... 15 

Butt v. State ofCal(fornia 

4 Cal. 4th 668 (1992) .................................................................................................. 7, 27 

Christward Ministry v. Superior Court 

(1986) 184Ca1.App.3d 180 ............................................................................................... 9 

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board (!fSupervisors 

(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 ...................................................................................................... 15 

City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino 

(2002) 96-Cal.App.41h 398 ............................................................................................. 10 

City of Santee v. County of San Diego 

(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 ............................................................................................. 9 

Common Cause of California v. Board of Supervisors 

(1989) 49 Cal.3d 432 .................................................................................................. 7, 27 

Conover v. Hall 

(1974) II Cal.3d 842 ...................................................................................................... 33 

Continental Baking Co. v. Kalz 

(1968) 68 Cal.2d 512 ........................................................................................................ 7 

County o,f Amador v. EI Dorado County Water Agency 

(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931 ............................................................................................. 30 

County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles 

(1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 ..................................................................................... 9, 10, 30 

Dept. of Fish and Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 

(1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1554 ............................................................................................. 28 

Earth Island Insl. v. US. Forest Service 

(9th Cir. 2003) 351 F.3d 1291 ......................................................................................... 27 

iii. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 1012/12 (28254) #477766 3 
181 


Insert offset folio 148 here 81259.148

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Cases (cont.) 

Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc., v. Johnson 

(1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604., ................ , .... ,", .................................................................... 8 

Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors 

(1972) 8 Cal.3d 247 .......................................................................................................... 8 

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Brinegar 

(9th Cir.1975) 518 F.2d 322 ............................................................................................ 33 

IT Corp. v. County of Imperial 

(1983) 35 Cal.3d 63 .................................................................................................. 27, 28 

Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 

(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 ............................................................................................. 10 

Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents ofUniv. of Calif 

(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 ................................................................................................ 15, 30 

Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. 

(1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 ................................................................................................. 9, 24 

Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles 

(1997) 58 Cal.AppAth 1019 ........................................................................................... 21 

Mangini v . .fG. Durand International 

(1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 214 ............................................................................................. 34 

McQueen v. Bd. of Directors 

(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136 ........................................................................................... 13 

Mejia v. City of Los Angeles 

(2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 322 ............................................................................................. 9 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 

(2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 268 ........................................................................................... 15 

Nelson v. County of Kern 

(2010) 190 Cal.AppAth 252 ........................................................................................... 13 

North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal COII/'n 

(2008) 166 Cal.AppAth 1416 ......................................................................................... 26 

People ex rei. Van De Kalllp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

(9th Cir.1985) 766 F.2d 1319 .......................................................................................... 33 

Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal v. Chip-It Recycling 

(200 I) 91 Cal.AppAth 678 ............................................................................................... 7 

iv. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELlMI"'ARY INJLNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 10/2/12 (28254) #477766.3 
182 


Insert offset folio 149 here 81259.149

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

Cases (cont.) 

Protect The Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency 

(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th I 099 ......................................................................................... 30 

Regents o.f'University ofCalifi)rnia v. Superior Court 

(1999) 20 Cal.4th 509 ..................................................................................................... 26 

Robbins v. Superior Court 

(1985) 38 Cal.3d 199 ........................................................................................................ 7 

San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County o./San Francisco 

(1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61 ......................................................................................... 21, 22 

San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. City of Merced 

(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645 ............................................................................... 10,15,19 

San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County o/Stanislaus 

(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713 ...................................................................................... passim 

Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles 

(2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715 ........................................................................................... 23 

Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey County Bd. o./Supervisors 

(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99 ................................................................................... 14, 20, 23 

Save Strawberry Canyon v. Department of Energy 

(N.D. Cal. 2009) 613 F.Supp.2d 1177 ............................................................................ 34 

Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry 

(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215 ..................................................................................................... 15 

Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of'Stanislaus 

(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182 ............................................................................................. 18 

Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Association v. State Water Resources Control Board 

(1994) 23 Cal.App.4lh 1459 ........................................................................................... 27 

Vineyard Area Citizensfor Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova 

(2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 ................................................................................................. 9,30 

Western States Petroleum Assn v. Superior Court 

24 (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559 ....................................................................................................... 34 

25 

26 

27 

28 v. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 1012112 (28254) #477766 J 
183 


Insert offset folio 150 here 81259.150

2 Code of Civil Procedure 

§ 525-527 ........................................................................................................................ 35 

3 § 526(a) ....................................................................................................................... 7,28 

§ 529 ................................................................................................................................ 33 

§ 529(b)(4) ...................................................................................................................... 33 4 

5 § 1085 .............................................................................................................................. 34 

§ 1 094.5 ..................................................................................................................... 34, 35 

6 § 1 094.5(g) ...................................................................................................................... 35 

7 Government Code 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

§ 11120 .................................................................................................................. 1,27,30 

§ 11123(a) ....................................................................................................................... 26 

§ I I 125(a) ....................................................................................................................... 26 

§ 11130.3 ......................................................................................................................... 26 

Public Resources Code 

§ 21000-21003 .......................................................................................................... 15,30 

§ 21 091 ............................................................................................................................ 22 

§ 21100 .............................................................................................................................. 9 

§ 21151 .............................................................................................................................. 9 

§ 21167.3(b) .................................................................................................................... 33 

§21168.5 ........................................................................................................................... 9 

Other Authorities 

16 CEQA Guidelines 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

§ 15003 ............................................................................................................................ 10 

§ 15003(1) .......................................................................................................................... 8 

§ 15087 ............................................................................................................................ 34 

§ 15088(a) ....................................................................................................................... 22 

§ IS088(c) ....................................................................................................................... 23 

§ 15088.5 ......................................................................................................................... 24 

§ 15124 .............................................................................................................................. 9 

§ 15125 ........................................................................................................................ 9,14 

§ 15126.4 ................................................................................................................... 19,20 

§ 15144 ............................................................................................................................ 15 

§ 15145 ............................................................................................................................ 15 

§ 15146 ............................................................................................................................ 10 

§ 15164 ............................................................................................................................ 24 

§ 15233(b) ....................................................................................................................... 33 

Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act 

§ 12.7 ............................................................................................................................... 10 

§ 12.8 ............................................................................................................................... 11 

§ 12.16 ............................................................................................................................. 14 

§ 12.17 ............................................................................................................................. 14 

vi. 

CORfiECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 10/2/12 (2R254) #477766 3 
184 


Insert offset folio 151 here 81259.151

NOTE REGARDING CIT A nONS TO CEQA, THE RECORD, AND EXHIBITS 

2 This Memorandum of Points and Authorities (,'Memorandum") uses the following citation 

3 conventions regarding references to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), 

4 Respondent's certified administrative record of proceedings ("Record"), and the exhibits to the 

Declaration of Jason W. Holder. filed herewith: 

6 CEQA is codified at Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. All statutory 

7 citations in this Memorandum are to CEQA unless otherwise indicated, and shall consist of a 

8 section symbol (§) followed by the section number and. if any, the subdivision(s) cited thereto. 

9 For example. a citation to Public Resources Code § 21100, subd. (b), would appear as follows: 

10 § 21100(b). 

II The CEQA Guidelines are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 14, chapter 

12 3, section 15000, et seq. All citations to the CEQA Guidelines shall consist of the word 

13 "Guidelines" followed by a section symbol, the relevant section number. and, if any, the 

14 subdivision(s) cited thereto. For example, a citation to Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, ch. 3, § 15003, 

15 subdivision (1), would appear as follows: Guidelines § 15003(f). 

16 Citation to the Record are noted by the letter denoting the Record section (1\ through L) 

17 followed by page number(s). Where a page range or a series of pages are cited together, any 

18 duplicate leading page numbers are omitted. For example, a citation to Record Section B. 

19 pages 000047 and 000058 would appear as follows: B000047,58. 

20 Citation to Exhibits ("Exh," or "Exhs.") attached to the Declaration of Jason W. llolder in 

21 Support of Petitioners' Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Holder Declaration") are to the 

22 exhibit letter identified in the Holder Declaration, filed herewith. followed by page number(s). 

23 For example, a citation to Exhibit A to the Holder Declaration. Excerpts from Fresno to 

24 Bakersfield Revised Draft EIR ("RDEl R"), pages 2-108 through 2-113 would appear as 

25 follows: Exh.A,pp.2-108-2-113. 

26 

27 

28 

vii. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y ! 0/2/12 (28254) #477766 3 
185 


Insert offset folio 152 here 81259.152
186 


Insert offset folio 153 here 81259.153

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This action challengcs the certification of the FE!R for the Merced to Fresno Section of 

the HSR Projcct and related approvals.! This motion seeks to preserve thc status quo pendente 

lite, to prevent substantia! irreparable harm Ii'om, inter alia, Section implementation activities, 

already slated to commencc bcfore the Court can render its final judgment on the merits. 

Petitioners County of Madera, Madera County Farm Burcau, Merced County Farm 

Bureau, Prescrve Our Heritage, Chowchilla Water District and Fagundes Parties (collectively, 

"Petitioncrs") contend that Respondent California High-Specd Rail Authority violated CEQA 

and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act ("Open Meeting Act"/ in approving the FEIR. The 

Authority is implementing the challenged Section approvals while this lawsuit is pending, 

including commencing detailed engineering, land acquisition, planning and construction 

contracting activities. In early 2013, the Authority will begin buying ROW properties and will 

then commence pre-construction and construction activities. These activities will cost billions 

of taxpayer dollars and cause irreversible impacts to the environment, communities, the 

regional economy, business and individuals. They will disrupt farms and businesses, 

exacerbating challenges already presented by this depressed economy, and crcate significant 

construction impacts, such as increased traffic, noise, and air pollution. The Authority's 

insistence on charging full-steam ahead, despite substantial concerns about the Section and the 

Project, raised in this lawsuit and in other related eases,3 is reckless, wasteful and destructive. 

In contrast to the Authority'S reckless behavior, a typical project developer, faced with a 

major CEQA legal challenge to its project approvals, does not proceed with pre-construction 

and construction activities. They do not need to be told to wait the risk of wasted resources is 

too great. They know that a successful legal challenge may lead to major project changes. 

consideration of a feasible and superior project alternative, or even projcct dcnial after an 

See accompanying List of Acronyms and Abbreviations lor descriptions of all defined terms. 

2 Gov. Code, § 11120, e/ seq. 

See RJN, filed herewith, describing: (I) two successful challengcs to the Bay Area PEIR and 

Revised PEIR (appeals pending), (2) a pending challenge re the Project's consistency with 

Proposition I A requirements, and (3) two related cases consolidated with this case. 

I. 

CORRl;CTf:D :vJPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRA lIVE STAY 1012/12 (282S4) #477766 3 
187 


Insert offset folio 154 here 81259.154

accurate assessment of the project's environmental impacts. Self-interest alone is enough to 

2 prevcnt imprudent activity: Here, presumably because the Authority is a public agency, it is 

3 apparently all too willing to put hundreds of millions of dollars of public money at risk. And 

4 there are even greater public interests at risk than just the hundreds of millions of taxpayer 

5 dollars. If allowed to proceed while this suit is pending, the Authority will cause real and 

6 irreversible damagc to the environment, to cstablished communitics, and to thousands of 

7 peoplc's lives. This recklessness should be stopped. 

8 8ecause Petitioners willlikcly prevail on the merits of their claims and the balance of 

9 harms weighs in Petitioners' favor, this Court should grant Petitioners' motion for a 

10 preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, Petitioners' application for an administrative stay. 

II Such interim rcliefwould protcct the affected region from irreparable alteration prior to an 

12 accurate assessment and full disclosure of the scope and severity of the Section's 

13 environmental impacts and would ensurc adequate consideration of alternative Section 

14 alignments and additional mitigation measures which may be identified in a revised E!R. 

15 II. 

!6 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Project Background, Environmental Review and Approval 

17 This lawsuit concerns the first 75± mile Section of an immense public infrastructure 

18 project that (if actually built) could ultimately include more than 800 miles of track, numerous 

19 stations and maintenance facilities, extensive electricity infrastructure, and other facilities on a 

20 50 to I OO-foot-wide grade-separatcd ROW stretching between San Diego and Los Angeles to 

21 the south and San Francisco and Sacramento to the north5 The southern portion of the Section 

22 is part of the 130±mile !CS that would extend from Madera to Bakersfield.6 The ICS would be 

23 the first-to-be-built portion of the immense public infrastructure Project. 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

, And evcn if self-interest is an insufficient brake, most projects have third-party financial 

investors or lenders who will not provide funds necessary for development to proceed whcn a 

major legal challenge is pending. For now, the Project relies entirely on taxpayer derived funds. 

5 See 8000047. 58 [Figure S-I and Table S-2], 153,201; F1333593-95 [Statewide PEIRj. 

6 See F 146790, 803-04 [Revised 2012 Business Plan j; see also Exh. A. pp. 2-108 - 2-113; see 

also Exh. B, pp. I, 7; see also Exh. C. Limits of Work Map. 

2. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION i ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y ! 0/2!!2 (28254) #~777f,6 J 
188 


Insert offset folio 155 here 81259.155

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

In September 2009, the Authority published its second Notice of Preparation for the 

Section's DEIR,7 The Authority conductcd extremely limited surveys to establish the 

environmental baseline.8 The DEIR, released for public rcview in August 2011, analyzed and 

compared the impacts of three alternative alignments, based on only a 15% level of design. 9 

The DEIR analyzed the three broadly described alternatives at a general level of detail, without 

identirying a preference. 10 Based on a largcly hypothetical baseline and a vague depiction of 

the project characteristics, the DEIR presented only a generalized analysis of Section impacts. I I 

The DEIR deferred the formulation of feasible mitigation measures for many identified 

significant impacts to somctime after Section approval. 

Petitioners and others submitted timely comments on the DElR.12 Notably, federal and 

state agencies expressed grave concerns regarding the analysis. For example: 

The Corps stated that the DEIR lacks sufficient detail regarding the impacts of project 

alternatives on jurisdictional waters and compensatory mitigation, the significance 

conclusions regarding temporary impacts to wetlands arc unfounded, the indirect 

impacts to wetlands must be quantified, and significance conclusions regarding 

cumulative impacts to cultural resources arc unsubstantiated;13 

The U.S. EPA observed that the DEIR's analysis lacks details and is incomplete, 

impacts to aquatic resources are insufficiently dcseribcd and spccific mitigation 

measures for these impacts arc missing, impacts from all project features arc not 

analyzed, impacts to drainage systems must be quantified, analysis of impacts to 

wildlife movement corridors, air quality, agriculture is incomplete, air quality health 

impacts must be quantified, growth inducing impacts are not fully analyzed, noise 

impact analysis is incomplete and associated mitigation measures are vague;14 

7 See BOOOOOI-5. Notably, the first NOP, rei cased in early 2009, announced an EIR that 

would analyze the entire Merced to Bakersfield section. See EOOOO 12-16. 

8 See B007997-98, 812-138, 597-98, 604-06, 617, 619, 9217,10710-711,10714 [Responses 

to comments 1112-1,703-13, 717-3, 717-14. 780-10.965-5], 7870 [Response General-24]. 

9 See B007829-30 [Response General-I, "Level of Detail in Analysis" section]. 

10 See B007851-53 [Response General-l 0]; B008586, 88 [comment 1151-3, criticizing delayed 

selection of preferred alternative and responsc]. 

II See B007829-31 [Response General-2J, 8596-97, [comment 717-2 and response]. 

12 See B007792-821 (tables in FElR listing all agency, organization and business comments]. 

13 B007949-55 (Corps's comments 940-2, 940-3, 940-12 and responses]. 

14 B007962-7969. B007974, B007979-7983, B007987-7988, B007997-8000 (EPA comments 

774-2 through 774-8, 774-25 and 1112-1 through 1112-5 and responses]. 

3. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY I 0/2!12 (28254) #477766 J 
189 


Insert offset folio 156 here 81259.156

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NMFS recommended compensatory mitigation for construction-period and operational 

impacts to essential fish habitat;15 

CDFG recommended the Project include carefully designed wildlife crossing structures, 

urged extensive surveys to establish an accurate baseline, and criticized the deferral of 

analysis and mitigation; 16 

CalTrans criticized the lack of analysis supporting conclusions regarding impacts to rail 

ireight, truck routes and state highways, inadequate and inaccurate information 

concerning planned roadway changes, and inadequate analysis of impacts caused by 

road design changes and closures; 17 

The DOC warned that more agricultural lands would be directly impacted than 

disclosed in the DEIR; 18 and 

The SLC criticized the lack of details concerning the San Joaquin River crossing and 

suggested that adding necessary details may require recirculation, the general failure to 

demonstrate eflicacy of mitigation measures, the improper deferral of mitigation, and 

lack of analysis of noise impacts on fish species. 19 

The Authority responded to only a select subset of these and othcr comments.20 Further, the 

FEIR improperly grouped multiple disparate comments together and provided a single 

generalized response, thus evading many significant points raised in comments?1 In general, 

the responses defendcd the Authority's gcneralized approach, its unsupported assumptions 

regarding the environmental baseline, the deferral of impact analysis, the deferral of mitigation, 

and the narrow range of project alternatives.22 

15 B007944, 55 [NMFS comment 756-1 and response I; see also B000777-778, 787 [FEIR did 

not adopt recommcnded mitigation]. 

16 BOI0708-15 [CDFG comments 965-1 and 965-5 and responses]; see also BOOOI96-97, 

B000747, B000750-52 [FEIR introduced wildlife crossing structures as project design features, 

but did not incorporate CDFG's recommended design methodology]. 

17 B008055-59 [CalTrans comments 775-1, 775-5, 775-6 and 775-7 and responses], B008039-

47 [CalTrans comments 721-1, 721-2, 721-14 and 721-19 and responses]. 

18 BOI0720-22, BOI0725 [DOC comment 875-4 and response]. 

19 B008023-28 [SLC comments 864-4, 864-5, 864-6 and 864-7 and response]. 

20 See, e.g., B007962 [EPA's comment re role ofFEIR in Section 404 permitting process and 

deficiencies in FEIR, with no response to comment], 8122-33, 34-41 [comments 703-3, 703-10 

and 703-16 and incomplete responses]. 

21 See H000565-78 [Madera FB and Merced FE letter re FEIRI. 

22 Citations to specific responses to comments are provided below in discussion of Petitioners' 

likelihood of prevailing with respect to each of these claims. 

4. 

COI/RECFED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STAY lOll!! 2 (2R25~) #4777(j6 J 
190 


Insert offset folio 157 here 81259.157

The FEIR's substantially revised analysis introduced significant new information. The 

2 analysis identified both new significant impacts2J and changes in project design and ncw 

3 mitigation measures that would cause significant direct and secondary effects?4 The FEIR, 

4 however, mostly ignored these effects, and failed to analyze and mitigate them. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Petitioners and others pointed out deficiencies in the Authority's responses to comments 

and in the FEIR's substantially revised analysis.25 The Authority staff ignored most of these 

objections?6 In spite of widespread comments urging recirculation and the extensive revisions 

to the analysis, the Authority did not recirculate a revised EIR for public review and comment. 

Instead, the Authority Board certified the FEIR and approved the Hybrid Alternative, but 

expressly deferred any decision concerning an east-west wye27 alternative and the location of a 

heavy maintenance facility.28 

On September 18,2012, the Federal Railroad Administration released its Record of 

Decision for the Section.29 The ROD, as the FRA's project approval, "will allow the Authority 

to move forward with construction and related activities for the [Section ] ... .',30 Notably, 

however, the Corps has not issued CWA Section 404 and Section 408 permits for the Section.3l 

23 See, e.g., BOI0725 [response to DOC comment 875-4, acknowledging additional direct 

impacts to agriculture], 7974-88 [EPA comment 774-25 re increased noise impacts from more 

concrete slab], B000520, 535-36 [FEIR, Noise Ch., acknowledging increased noise relatcd to 

concrete slab], 8044-48 [CalTrans comment 721-16 re unanalyzed traffic impacts and 

responses], 8196, 8209 [City of Merced commcnt 582-6 (# 17) and response re inconsistency 

with city's general plan policiesj, B008206, 215 [comment 582-12 (#82) and response]. 

24 See, e.g., B000520 [change from ballast to concrete slab], 196-97 [new wildlife crossing 

structures], 399-415 [FEIR, Traffic, identifYing new traffic mitigation measures that would 

cause secondary impacts], 9201-02, 9219 [comment 780-10 (re Bio-MM#45) and response]. 

25 See H000643-45, 565-78, 538-48, 650-51, 550-54, 557-62, 975-8 [Comments re FEIR]. 

26 See f 100 I 003-19 [Staff Responses to Comments re FEIR ]. 

27 The "wye" alternatives are "curved, high-spced alignments that would connect Central 

Valley sections of the HSTwith Bay Area sections," B007835; see also BOOOI63-64. 

28 See A000004-7 [Approval Resolutions], 14-15 [CEQA Findings of Fact ("FOr',) and 

Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") for Section, description of deferred decisions 

and map of approved portions of Section]. 

29 See Exh. 0, p. 41. 

30 Id. at p. 6. 

II ld. at pp. 9-10. 

5. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY I O/2!l 2 (28254) #47776(' :; 
191 


Insert offset folio 158 here 81259.158

B. Project Implementation 

2 Since approving the Section in early May 2012, the Authority has begun expeditiously 

3 implementing its approved Section plans. It solicited bids from construction firms and, as early 

4 as January 2013, will enter into contracts with the firms that will perform the work included in 

5 Construction Package No. I ("CPI"), a 29±mile stretch of the ICS extending from Avenue 17 

6 in the City of Madera to south of East American A venue in the City of Fresn032 The Authority 

7 is already conducting land surveys ofpropcrties within the CPI ROWand other areas within 

8 the ICS and will soon begin acquiring property.33 

9 At least several months before this lawsuit can be resolved, the Authority and its 

10 contractors will complete design ofCPI, enter into binding contracts, initiate pre-construction 

II activities, and begin construction of the CPl.34 The Authority is aggressively implementing 

12 CPI before the Corps, CDFG, CalTrans, SJAPCD, and other agencies have made permitting 

13 decisions." Under the Authority'S timeline, construction activities may occur beforc critical 

14 mitigation measures for air quality, traffic, noise, and agricultural impacts are in place.36 

15 In March 2012, the Authority estimated that design-build work for CPI will cost $1.5 to 

16 2 Billion.37 This estimate - which does not include the cost of acquiring the ROW, as well as 

17 other costs has changed little in the ensuing months, even in the face of mounting estimated 

18 construction costS.38 The actual cost of constructing CPI alone may substantially exceed the 

19 

20 

2[ 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

32 See Exh. E, pp. C-3 - C-5; see also Exh. B, p. 7; see also Exh. C, Limits of Work Map. 

33 See Exh. F; see also Exh. G, Notes for cp-o I A and 13 ROW Acquisition Plans; see also 

Declaration of Sam Curran in Support of Motion ("Curran Declaration"), '8. 

34 See F[46803-04 [Revised 2012 Business Plan initial construction begins in early 20[3]; 

Exh. A, pp. 2-108 - 2-113. The Authority anticipates the notice to proceed with CPI 

construction ("NTP") to be issued as early as March 2013. See Exh. C, p. 7. 

35 See Exh. 0, ROD, pp. 9-10 [Corps has not issued Section 404 permit for Section]; see also 

8000258-259 [FEIR, list of permits required]. 

36 See, e.g., A000038-39 [FOF, N&V MM#I with no mandatory restrictions that measures be 

in place prior to ground disturbing activities], 70-74 [FOF, MM-8io#]. 

37 See Exh. H, Staff Report to AUTHORITY Board re RFP for CP I. 

38 See Exh. 13, p. 8 ["budget goal" for design and construction "estimated at $1.2 billion to $1.8 

billion"]; see also Exh. I, Table Summary of Estimated CPI Costs Identified in Task Orders 

[$1.5 Billion in Task Order costs alone]; see also Exh. J [Task Orders for infrastructure 

6. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 10/2112 (2B25..J.) #477766 J. 
192 


Insert offset folio 159 here 81259.159

Authority's publicized estimates for constructing all of the ICS. Indeed, the enonnous costs 

2 associated with just CPI balloons when extrapolated to the many other infrastructure 

3 modification projects that will be necessary to build the rest o/the Section and the ICS39 

4 III. ARGUMENT 

5 A. Legal Standard 

6 Preliminary injunctions preserve the status quo until a final determination of the merits 

7 of the action.4o To issue a preliminary injunction, the Court must weigh two "interrelated" 

8 factors: (I) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the 

9 relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or non issuance of the injunction.41 The 

10 Court's "determination must be guided by a 'mix' of the potential-merit and interim-harm 

II factors; the greater the plaintiffs showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to 

12 support an injunction:,42 Where the moving party makes a sufficiently strong showing of 

13 likelihood of success on the merits, the injunction may issue, even where the balance of harms 

14 does not tip in its favor.43 Finally, a court "must exercise its discretion 'in favor of the party 

IS most likely to be injured.' ... If the denial of an injunction would result in great harm to the 

16 plaintiff, and the defendants would suffer little harm if it were granted, then it is an abuse of 

17 discretion to fail to grant the preliminary injunction.,,44 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

relocation and construction work within CPI indicates more than $1.3 Billion will be spent on 

infrastructure relocation and new construction work within City of Fresno for city facilities 

impacted by CP 11; see also Exhs. K through Q, [Excerpts from draft Master Agreements 

between Authority and Fresno County, Fresno Irrigation District, Madera County, Fresno 

Municipal Flood Control District, Madera Irrigation District, PG&E and AT&T, respectively; 

see also Exh. R [relocating 2.5±miles of Highway 99 will cost $225,900,0001. 

39 For example, the more than $1.5 Billion in Task Order costs for intrastructure modification 

projects would be over $6.9 Billion when extrapolated to 130-mile ICS. 

40 Continenlal Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528. 

41 Butt v. Stale o(CalifiJrnia (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a). 

42 Ibid. 

43 Common Cause o(Cali(ornia v. Board o(Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 447; Pleasant 

Hill Bayshore Disposal v. Chip-II Recycling (200 I) 91 Cal.App.4th 678, 696. 

44 Rohhins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199,205. 

7. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,' ADMINISTRA TlVE STA Y 1012/12 (28254) #4777(:,6 3 
193 


Insert offset folio 160 here 81259.160

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

When a CEQA petitioner seeks a preliminary injunction and demonstrates a likelihood 

of prevailing on the merits, the Court should grant the injunction to avoid prejudice against 

project alternatives or feasible additional mitigation measures - or outright project denial 45 In 

San Joaquin Rap/or I, the Court, in issuing an injunction sua sponte, reasoned: 

If an injunction is not issued, surveying and construction may commence absent 

any meaningful exploration and public disclosure of the true scope of the 

deVelopment project, its sensitive environmental setting, environmental impacts 

or feasible alternatives. It is all too likely that if such activities proceed pending 

preparation of an adequate EIR, momentum will build and the project will be 

approved, no matter how severe the environmental consequences identified in 

the new EIR. Consideration of alternative sites or density or additional 

mitigation measures, ... will be prejudiced, for the development project will 

have proceeded well beyond tbe planning stages and change will be both more 

difficult to effect lind less likely /0 occur46 

That same rationale applies here with even more force. 

B. The Conrt Should Issne a Preliminary Injunction 

1. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Prevail on the Merits 

14 There is a high probability that Petitioners will succeed on the merits. As explained 

15 below, the environmental review for the Section is deeply flawed:7 Further, Petitioners will 

16 likely prevail on their Open Meeting Act claim. 

17 (a) CEQA Violations 

18 "CEQA was intendcd to be interpreted so as to accord the fullest possible protection to 

19 the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.',48 CEQA is a full 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

45 San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County ojStanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.AppAth 713, 

741-742 (San Joaquin Raptor I). 

46 Id. at p. 742. 

47 Due to brieflength limitations, Petitioners have not presented all oftheir CEQA claims in 

connection with this Motion and Application - most notably, the claims of improper tiering and 

failure to analyze a reasonable range of project alternatives. These claims are more 

complicated than the CEQA claims presented herein. Petitioners intend to raise these and other 

remaining claims when briefing the merits of their Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint. 

48 Guidelines § 15003(f), citing Friend, ojMammoth v. Bd. of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 

247,259; see also Environmental Protection InjiJrmation Center, Inc., v. Johnson (1985) 170 

Cal.App.3d 604, 622 ["Full compliance with the letter of CEQ A is essential to the maintenance 

of its important public purpose,"], 

8. 

CORRfXTED )"lPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY W!21l2 (2825il) #477766 3 
194 


Insert offset folio 161 here 81259.161

disclosure statute - the EIR is the method by which that disclosure is made.'9 As such, the EIR 

2 must describe the proposed project and its environmental setting, identity and analyze the 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

significant environmental impacts, describe how those impacts can be mitigated or avoided, 

and idcntify a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, among other requirements,50 

Under CEQA, the Court must set aside an agency action if the agency committed a 

prejudicial abuse of discretionS I This abuse of discretion occurs if the agency fails to proceed 

in the manner required by law or if its findings are not supportcd by substantial evidence.52 

While courts "determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct 

procedures 'scrupulously enforc[ing] all legislatively mandated CEQA 

requirements' [citation], [courts] accord greater deference to the agency's 

substantive factual conclusions. [citations] l~] In evaluating an EIR for CEQA 

compliance, then, a reviewing court must adjust its scrutiny to the nature ofthe 

alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of 

improper procedure or a dispute over the facts. 53 

13 The Authority's CEQA violations discussed below are subject to the de novo standard of 

14 review, as they concern CEQA's legislatively mandated requirements. 

15 (I) Inadequate Project Description 

16 The Authority failed to provide an accurate and complete description of the Section, in 

17 violation ofCEQA. "An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an 

18 infonnative and legally adequate EJR.',54 Without it, CEQA's objective oftostering public 

19 disclosure and informed environmental decision-making is stymied. 55 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

49 Christward Ministry v. Super. Ct. (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 185; Laurel Heights 

Improvement Assn. v. Regents ofUniv. ofCa/if (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 (Laurel Heights II) 

50 Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 330, citing §§ 211 OO(b), 21 151 

and Guidelines §§ 15124, 15125. 

51 § 21168.5. 

52 Vineyard Area Citizens jiJr Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 

Cal.4th 412, 435 (Vineyard), citing § 21168.5. 

53 Ibid, citations omitted. 

54 County ofJnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. 

55 See City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1450; see also San 

Joaquin Raplor I, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 730. 

9. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 10/2112 (28254) #477766 3 
195 


Insert offset folio 162 here 81259.162

2 

3 

4 

The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy 

of the EIR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description is 

inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the environmental 

analysis will probably reflect the same mistake.56 

The project description also must be complete and consistent throughout an EIR.s7 "A 

curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. 

6 Only through an accurate view ofthc project may affected outsiders and public decision7 makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costS ... .',58 Indeed, courts have 

8 cautioncd lead agencies against crafting a project description in ways that minimize reportcd 

9 environmental effects by omitting reasonably foresceable project aspects59 Thc requircd 

10 project description provides a sound basis for (l) focused and meaningful public input, (2) 

II complete identification of issues, (3) development of rca son able alternatives, (4) focused 

12 analysis of effects, and (5) informed deliberation and a supportable decision. 

13 Ilere, DEIR and FEIR did not include a complete, sufficiently detailed and consistent 

14 description ofthe Section alternatives so that thc public and dccision makcrs could understand 

15 the effects of the project and its alternatives.60 When commenters raised this concern, the 

16 Authority dismissed this issue, responding that the level of review in the DEIR was based on a 

17 15% design, that the FEIR "had reached 15-30% level of design,,61 and that more detailed 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 12.7, pp. 

580-581 (Jan. 201 1 update) (Practice Under CEQA), excemts attached hereto as Exh. 1. 

57 County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192; see also City of Redlands v. County of San 

Bernardino (2002) 96-CaI.AppAth 398, 406 ["An accurate and complete project description is 

necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts ofthe agency's 

action"]; see also Guidelines § 15003. 

58 Jd. at pp. 192-193. 

59 See, e.g., San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. City of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.AppAth 645, 

655 (San Joaquin Raptor Il); see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 

221 Cal.App.3d 692,733; see also Guidelines § 15146. 

60 See generally BOOO 153-244 [FEIR, Ch. 2 AlternativesJ; see also 8596-97, 617 [comment 

717-2 and response]. 

61 B007830 [Response General-I]. Thc FEIR docs not explain which aspects of the design had 

reached levels exceeding 15%, nor does it explain whether the increased level of design 

provides dctails that reveal prcviously undisclosed environmental impacts. See ibid.; BOOOI76. 

(,ORRECTED );IPA ISO 10/2/12 (28~54) #477766,3 
196 


Insert offset folio 163 here 81259.163

"review" would occur after approval ofthe Section.62 This. despitc the fact that the 

2 Authority's predecessor agency, the Intercity High Specd Rail Commission, had stated that at 

3 least a 35% design was necessary to conduct environmental review."3 The Authority has never 

4 explained how a 15% level of design can suffice as the basis for project-level environmental 

5 review. On the contrary. in several responses to comments, the Authority admitted that the 

6 15% level of design limited its impact analysis.64 

7 The FEIR also failed to accurately identifY all Section characteristics.65 Such Section 

8 characteristics include. but are not limited to: 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I) 

2) 

3) 

4) 

The amount of land to be (a) acquired and (b) disturbed;66 

Preferred and alternative locations for (a) the heavy maintenance facility and for (b) 

an east-west wye alternative;67 

New and modified (a) transmission lines and substations necessary to provide power 

to the Section and (b) related access roads and spur roads;68 

New and modified irrigation. drainage, water supply and sewer infrastructure;69 

62 B007830 [Gen. Response I], B007997-98 [EPA comment 1112-1 re inconsistent estimates 

on impacts to aquatic resources and response], B008218. 23 [City of Merced comment 590-5 re 

unanalyzed traffic impacts and response], B008626-27, 8634-35 [comment 1111-4 re 

insufficient project detail for impact analysis and response]. B009177, 79 [PG&E comment 

576-6re inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts to utilities and response], B009315-17. 

9346-4 7 [comments 668-13 through 668-17 re incomplete project description and responses].) 

63 See Exh. S, Excerpts from High Speed Rail Summary Report and Action Plan (1996), p. 9-4. 

64 See, e.g., B008114 ["The [Section's] level of design somewhat limits the level of detail that 

the EIR/EIS can achieve"], 8137 [same]. 8211 [sameJ. 

65 See San Joaquin Raptor 1, supra, 27 Cal.AppAth at pp. 729-731; see also Practice Under 

CEQA, § 12.8, pp. 581-582, excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit I. 

66 Compare DEIR, Summary, p. C000007 ["the total acquisition area for the Merced to Fresno 

Section would be between 2,500 and 3,300 acres"] with FEIR, Summary [no estimate]. 

67 B000081, 155, 167, 174 [FEIR description of alternatives]. 

68 The FEIR describes some, but not all, of these transmission system upgrades and related 

infrastructure. 8000165-67, 196; see also H000543-44 [comments criticizing lack of 

information re transmission infrastructure]. The analysis of impacts associated with 

transmission system upgrades is perfunctory. See, e.g., 8000452,453,610. 618, 627, 639, 

1178 [air quality, utility and aesthetic impacts of transmission infrastructure, respectively]. 

69 The FEIR fails to describe these necessary facilities in any meaningful level of detail. 

80001962-44,0254; see also B008 I 25.36 [comment 703-5 and response]. 8084-88 [comments 

751-1 and 550-1 and rcsponses]. 8231-34.52 [comment 708-2 and responscj. 

II. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJuNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 10/2112 (2825..t) #477766 3 
197 


Insert offset folio 164 here 81259.164

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5) New and modified bridges over streams and rivers;7o 

6) The amount of concrete slab that will be used for tracks in licu of ballast; 71 

7) Wildlife crossing structures;72 

8) Modified freeway interchanges. ramps and frontage roads;73 

9) Road closures and modifications required for each alternative;H 

10) New and modified roadway ovcrpasses;75 and 

II) The location of construction staging areas and concrete batch plants.76 

The FEIR fails to describe these and other major Section characteristics with enough detail for 

an accurate project-level review of environmental impacts.77 The lack of detail also denies 

meaningful public participation and compromises responsible decision-making. 

70 See BOOO 160-161. 221. Bridge construction impacts have been fully analyzed. See 

B000680-84, 734 ["Final bridge design plans are not currently available, but may require 

placing piling within the San Joaquin River"l, 7965,981 [EPA comment 774-6 re inadequate 

analysis of river crossing impacts and response], 7964. 67 [comment 864-3 and response]. 

71 This major change in project design occurred after release of the DEIR. See B000076 ["Slab 

track would be 3 decibels (dB) louder than ballast and tie track because of the decreased 

acoustic absorption ... and changes to the track stiffness. This change increased the number of 

severe impacts for all fIST alternatives and resulted in longer sound barriers for mitigation''], 

7974.88 [EPA comment 774-25 (Section lOA) and rcsponsel, B000520. 

72 The Authority added these project features at the FEIR stage, the DEIR is silent with respect 

to structures specifically designed to allow wildlife to pass bcneath the HSR ROW. Compare 

B000196-197 [FEIR, Ch. 2, Alternatives] with C000246-48 [DEIR, Ch. 2, Alternatives]. The 

introduction oflhese features resulted in an unstable project description. The FEIR also did not 

consider any impacts associated with construction and operation of wildlife crossing structures. 

73 The FEIR only mcntions possible modifications to freeways and ramps, but does not 

describe in detail these necessary aspects of Section alternatives. See B000205, 232, 300. 

74 BOOOI54, 178 [Table 2-2]. 179,205. The analysis of impacts associated with road closures 

and modilications was pertunctory at best. See B000270, 293, 304,307,312-13; see also 

B008196-97, 8208-09 [comments 582-5 (bullet 13) and 582-7 (bulletj) and responses].] 

75 Ibid. 

76 See B009191-92. 9210 [comment 780-5 and response]. 

77 The Authority claims that Section characteristics are described more specifically in design 

drawings attached as appendices to the DEIR and FEIR. See B007869-70 [Response General23]. The design drawings, however, only broadly depict Section characteristics. See, e.g., 

BOO 1773-74 [FEIR, Appendix 2-B. Project Footprint maps depicting San Joaquin River 

crossing]. Also. the FEIR fails to sufficiently incorporate even this broad information. 

12. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 1012/12 (28254) #477766 3 
198 


Insert offset folio 165 here 81259.165

Finally, thc DEIR and FEIR descriptions of the proposed project and the alternatives 

2 were further inadequate in that thc Authority failed to first identify a proposcd Scction 

3 alignment in the DEIR and a range of less defined Section alignment alternatives, as CEQA 

4 requires. Instead of identifying a proposed project at the DEIR stage of the analysis, the 

5 Authority analyzed threc different alternatives at the same generalized level, and only in 

6 December 2011 (two months after the close of the DEIR comment period), selectcd a prefcrred 

7 alternative to focus on in thc FEIR.78 This unusual approach frustrated disclosure of Section 

8 impacts and meaningful public participation at the DEIR stage. 

9 (2) Piece-mealed Environmental Review 

10 The Authority contemplates building a larger 130-milc ICS that would extend south to 

11 Bakersflcld.79 Initially, the Authority would use the ICS to test HSR trains and it may be used 

12 for Amtrak service.so Because the whole lCS constitutes the first phase ofHSR construction 

13 and operations, the Authority should have identified the entire ICS as the project under review 

14 in a single ElR (as it did in the original NOP). This approach would have provided a more 

15 accurate, comprehensive and realistic basis for analysis of the actual project in a single project16 level EIR. Instead, the Authority arbitrarily divided the ICS into pieces: the Merced to Fresno 

17 section and the Fresno to Bakersfield section, thereby creating a "fallacy of division."sl 

18 Planned construction and operation will not correspond with either section's boundaries, but 

19 the FEIR fails to present any rationale justifying the Authority'S division of the analysis. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BOOOI55; see also 8586, 88 [comment 1151-3 objecting to delayed selection of preferred 

alternative and response]. 

79 See FI46788, 803-04, 902 [Revised 2012 Business Plan]; see also B007853-54 [Rcsponse 

General-12], 9872, 934 [responses to comments 166-1 and 10-1]; see also Exh. C. This 

continucs to be the Authority'S plan. See Exh. P, RDEIR, pp. 2-108 - 2-110. 

80 B000168-70 [information re HSR testing]; see also B008399, 402 [Amtrak comment 727-1 

(# I), insufficient information re incremental implementation of Phase I of Project and 

response], 8931-32, 34 [comment 131-2 and response]. 

81 See Nelson v. County of Kern (20 I 0) 190 Cal.AppAth 252, 271 nhe broad scope of the term 

'project' prevents 'the fallacy of division,' which is the 'overlooking [ofa project's] cumulative 

impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole'], quoting McQueen v. Bd. of 

Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136,1144. 

13. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STAY !0/21!2 (28254) #477766:; 
199 


Insert offset folio 166 here 81259.166

The FEIR includes only a partial analysis of three east-west wye alternatives and the 

2 alternative Heavy Maintenance Facility ("HMF") locations. Commenters criticized the DEIR's 

3 analysis as incomplete and proposed a different wye alternative along State Route 152; in 

4 rcsponse, the Authority eliminated the wye and HMF portions of the Section from its proposed 

5 approval altogether, deferring review of these potential Section components untillater.82 This 

6 was improper, however, because the FEIR conflates the Section's north-south alignment 

7 impacts with wye impacts, making it impossible to differentiate the two sets ofimpacts83 

8 Thus, the Authority's approach to analyzing the "whole of this project" is confused, 

9 inconsistent, and a violation of CEQ A 's express piece-mealing prohibition. 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(3) Failure to Establish an Accurate Environmental 

Baseline for Measuring the Section's Impacts 

The Authority failed to conduct adequate surveys to identifY the environmental baseline 

for Section alternatives with respect to special status plants, endangered and threatened species, 

wetlands, cultural resources, agricultural resources and socioeconomic conditions 84 Without 

this baseline information, it could not conduct meaningful analysis of Section impacts. 

The environmental setting constitutes the baseline against which project impacts are 

measured.8s An accurate description of the affected cnvironmcnt is an essential prcrequisite for 

an adequate analysis of Section impacts. 86 "CEQA requircs that the preparers of the EIR 

See, e.g., 13007950, 53-54 [Corps's comment 940-11 and response I, 8498, 512 rcomment 

706-11 and response], 9128, 34 (comment 616-1 and responsel, 9190-91. 210 [comment 780-4 

and response]; see also H000540-42 [commcnts re FEIRl, 550 [comments re FElR]; see also 

AOOOa 14-15, 89 [FOF, description of Section and discussion of impacts to agriculture]. 

83 See, e.g., 13000691-98, 721-27 [Tables summarizing impacts to biological resources, with 

conflated information re wye and north/south alignment impacts], 13001086-95 [analysis of 

impacts to agricultural lands with similarly conflated information]. 

84 See 13007962-63, 7965, 7967, 7979, 7981-7983 [EPA comments 774-3, 774-6, 774-8 and 

responses]; 13010710-11,15 [CDFG comment 965-5 and response], 8604-05, 610-12, 619-22 

[comments 717-14, 717-18 and responsesj, 8128, 38 [comment 703-13 and responsc], 8197, 

209-10 [comments 582-7(j)-(k) and responses], 8314, 21 [comment 605-19 and response]. 

85 See Guidelines § 15125; see also Practice Under CEQA, §§ 12.16 - 12.17, p. 594, excerpts 

attached hereto as Exh. I. 

86 See Save Our Peninsula Com. v . . Monterey County Bd. a/Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 

99, 120-124 (Save Our Peninsula). 

14. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION fOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY I 0/2/!2 (28254) #-4777663 
200 


Insert offset folio 167 here 81259.167

conduct the investigation and obtain documentation to support a determination of pre-existing 

2 conditions. [Citation.] This is a crucial function of the EIR."s7 A lead agency has an 

3 obligation, for example, to collect information regarding the presence of species that may be 

4 impacted by a proposed projcet.88 

5 The Authority failed to meet this requirement. In fact, in responses to comments the 

6 Authority admitted that surveys for special status species would not be conducted until later, as 

7 part ofa future Biological Assessment.S

" CEQA, however, prohibits a lead agency from 

8 relying on afulure study for this critical baseline information.90 

9 (4) Improper Deferral ofImpact Analysis 

10 The Authority failed to fulfill its obligation to analyze, with sufficient care and detail, 

II the Section's impacts. The purpose of an environmental review document under CEQA is "to 

12 inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their 

13 decisions betore they are made:·91 Thus, a lead agency must conduct environmental review of 

14 all toreseeable aspects ofa proposed project.92 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

87 !d. at p. 122. 

88 Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 CaL4th 1215, 1236, citing §§ 21000,21002, 

citations omitted; see also San Joaquin Raptor [, supra, 27 CaLAppAth 713, 726 ["an agency 

must use its best efforts tofind out and disclose all that it reasonably can ... ."], quoting 

Guidelines §§ 15144, 15145, italics in original. 

89 See B007945lresponse to comment 756-1 ],8736-38,50 [comment 795-12 and response]. 

90 See, e.g., San Joaquin Raptor II, supra, 149 CaLApp.at pp. 669 [invalidating EIR that due 

lack of baseline intormation on the ground that mitigation measure calling for protocol surveys 

did not make up for this deficiency).) 

91 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supen'isors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564; see also 

Natural Resources Defense Couneil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 CaLAppAth 268, 

271 ["The ElR is intended to furnish both the road map and the environmental price tag for a 

project, so that the decision maker and the public both know, before the journey begins, just 

where the journey will lead, and how much they - and the environment - will have to give up in 

order to take that journey'} 

92 See Laurel Heights [mprovement Assn. v. Regents ofUniv. of Calif (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 

395-396 (Laurel Heights I); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port 

Com'rs (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1361-1362 ["It is, of course, not necessary that plans tor 

future usc be final, or that the precise details of the future use be known, before an analysis of 

environmental impacts are required"]. 

15. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY lOni!2 (28254) *4777663 
201 


Insert offset folio 168 here 81259.168

In this case, the Authority approved a Section of the Project that will result in the 

2 destruction of habitat, important fannland, extensive utility and roadway infrastructure, 

commercial and industrial facilities and residences all along its ROW. The Section will deviate 

4 from existing transportation corridors thereby causing extensive impacts - but the FEIR does 

not fully explain where this ambitious but highly destructive "journey" will lead. 

6 The FEIR fails to provide sufficient "site-specific" analysis, as required and promised. 

7 Both the Statewide PEIR and the Bay Area PEIR defended their respective general levels of 

8 impact analysis by assuring the reader that more detailed analysis would occur at the project9 level of environmental review'"} The FEIR for the Section does not explain how it provides the 

10 required detailed review promised in the earlier first-tier PEIRs (it does not). 

I I In fact, nearly all federal, state and local agencies that commented on the DEIR pointed 

12 out the lack of sufficiently detailed analysis and concrete mitigation.94 For example, the U.S. 

13 EPA and Corps, who both must rely on the analysis for their permitting and approval decisions, 

14 commented that the DEIR failed to quantifY all impacts on wetlands and other aquatic 

15 resources and failed to provide qualitative impact data?5 Yet the Authority pursued a strategy 

16 that treated the detailed analysis of impacts to wetlands and species required for federal 

17 permitting as separate from the analysis required under CEQA (and NEPA). Because the FEIR 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

93 The Statewide PEIR promised that "[tJhe detail of engineering associated with the project 

level environmental analysis will allow the Authority to identifY system requirements and 

further investigate ways to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential effects on the provision of 

such services." F 133709; see also F 133714,734.812-813. 815. 839-840. 863. 868-869. 896 

[deferring detailed analysis of traffic. air quality. noise and vibration. energy, electromagnetic 

field/interference. land usc and planning/ communities and neighborhoods/property/ 

environmental justice and agricultural impacts]. 

Similarly. the Bay Area PEIR and Revised PEIR also promised more detailed impact 

analysis at the second-tier project-level of review. See. e.g.. 1'126797, 800, 811-13 [promising 

more detailed analysis of impacts to agricultural lands] F133228 [promising more detailed 

traffic impact analysis]; see also F 130442-45 [Ruling on Submitted Matter attached to Bay 

Area Revised PEIR. discussion of claims regarding general level ofanalysis]. 

94 See description offederal and state comments in Section ll.A., supra. See also 13008311. 

13008320 [comment 605-1 and responses]. 8123-25. 8134-36 [comment 703-3 and response]. 

95 See 13007963-64. 7979-80, 7998-99 [EPA comments 774-3, 774-4 (Bullet #5) and 1112-1 

and responses]. 7959, 961-62 [Corps's comment 940-3 and response]. 

16. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STAY W!2i! 2 (28254) #477766 3 
202 


Insert offset folio 169 here 81259.169

serves as the sole environmental review documcnt for all federal and state permits, it necdcd to 

2 provide a more detailed analysis% The Authority ignored this directive. 

Similarly, when EPA, CDFG and CalTrans requested more detailed impact analysis. the 

4 Authority responded that quantified information would be provided after Section approval.97 

Thus. in this respect too, the analysis is deficient. 

6 The analysis of impacts to agricultural lands fails to describe criteria used to determine 

7 whether severed parcels could be used productively for agriculture. The Statcwide PEIR 

8 assumed that the Project ROW would be adjacent to or within existing transportation corridors, 

9 but recognized the possibility of deviation from these corridors and promised detailed 

10 severance analysis at the project level.Og But the FEIR also fails to provide this analysis. 

II The analysis of agricultural impacts underestimated impacts for a number of reasons. 

12 First, it only counted as directly impacted an unidentified number ofscvered agricultural 

13 parcels where access "would be restricted in such a way that the parcel would be unusable:·99 

14 The Authority did not engage in the detailed analysis because "[d]etermining the economic 

15 feasibility ofa large number of individual remainder parcels is not reasonably feasible because 

16 of the many local and parcel-specific factors that determine whether the parcel remains 

17 economically viable for farming.,·loo This approach not only violates the Authority's past 

18 promises for detailed severance analysis, it is legally unsound because it dismisses the 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

96 See B007962 [EPA's comment re role ofEIR in Section 404 permitting process and 

deficiencies in DEIR, with no response to this eomment]. 

97 B007966, 82 [EPA comment 774-7 (Section 4.3) and response], 10708-15 [CDFG 

comments 965-1 and 965-5 and responses]. 8055-59lCa1Trans comment 775-9 and response]. 

98 See 1'133901 ["Potential severanee locations are discussed qualitatively, not quantitatively, 

in this program-level document. Parcel-specific information is also not considered in this 

program-level analysis. Project-level farmland eonversion and severance impacts that are 

determined to be significant adverse impacts would be addressed in subsequent project-level 

documents"], italics added, 910 [potential alignmcnts "would be developed adjacent to existing 

lJPRR or BNSF rail rights-of-way" but. for some segments, "the alignment options are 

assumed to be within existing rights-of-way"]. 915 [second-tier project-level analysis will 

provide a more precise evaluation of impacts to agricultural lands]. 

99 See B008609-10, 22 [comment 717-17 and response]. 

100 B008622. 

17. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 1 O!21!2 (28254) # .. 477766 3 
203 


Insert offset folio 170 here 81259.170

possibility that even those severed parcels that would retain access to roadways might still 

2 experience significant direct impacts, so as to impair or eliminate the agricultural resource, 

3 Second, it concluded (without any support) that an undisclosed portion of the severed 

4 parcels could be farmed, and consequently would not be impacted by the Section,IOI But the 

5 FEIR fails to describe criteria used to determine whether a remainder parcel could be farmed; it 

6 also does not provide the number of remainder parcels counted towards the total acreage of 

7 impacted agricultural lands or the number of parcels excluded from this total. 102 

8 Third, the analysis failed to consider impacts to agriculture caused by severed facilities, 

9 such as irrigation and drainage canals and internal farm roads. The Authority's response to 

10 comments concerning this issue promises this analysis later on a case-by-case basis during the 

11 valuation process. 103 This response incorrectly implies that the issue solely concerns 

12 economics and does not implicate the loss of agricultural land, a CEQA impact. This 

13 assumption is false. 

14 Finally, the FEIR only describes severance of undefined "large" parcels, it docs not 

15 inform the reader of the amount and severity of severance to hundreds of smaller pareels. 104 

16 The analysis disregards the possibility that severing even a few acres from a small farm could 

17 have even more significant effects than severing the same acreage from a large farm. 105 

18 This entire approach constitutes impermissible deferral of impact analysis. The 

19 Authority consequently also failed to satisfY its obligation under CEQA to provide "sufficient 

20 meaningful information regarding the types of activity and environmental effects tbat are 

21 reasonably foreseeable" from the Section. 106 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

101 See BOOI064 [FEIR, methods fix evaluating impacts to agricultural lands]. 

102 See ibid. The Authority did not adequately explain its methodology in response to pertinent 

comments, See B008609-10, 22 [comment 717-17 and response], 7967,82 [EPA comment 

774-8(5, I) and responsej, 7840-7843 [Response General-4], 7925 [Response Agriculture-3]. 

103 B007927 lResponse Agrieulture-4]; see also B009203, 20 [comment 780-11 and response]. 

104 See BOO I 090-91 [FEIR, identifying only number of "large" severed parcels]. 

105 See B009904-05 [Shebelul comment], 

106 See Stanislaus Natural Heritage Pro). v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 CaLAppAth 182, 

206 [tailure to describe impacts associated with supplying water to development project]. 

18, 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELl MINAR Y INJlINCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y ! 012112 (2825,,)) #477766 3 
204 


Insert offset folio 171 here 81259.171

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(5) Improper Deferral of Mitigation 

The Authority also violated CEQA's requirement that mitigation measures be clearly 

defined and enforceable. lo7 The typical FEIR analysis identifies possible significant impacts, 

mentions various generalized mitigation measures that "could" be implemented and then 

simply concludes, without discussion, that the idcntified potential impacts would be 

insignificant with mitigation. lOS However, the FEIR fails to address the efficacy ofmitigation 

measures and fails to include required specific performance standards. 109 In this respect, the 

FEIR suffers from some of the same flaws identified by the Court in San Joaquin Raptor II: 

[Alfter first presuming that special-status species will be present in or near the 

vernal pools, the EIR leaves the reader in the dark about what land management 

steps will be takcn, or what specific criteria or performance standard will be 

met, if this presumption is confirmed by thc later protocol studies. The success 

or failure of mitigation efforts in regard to impacts on such vernal pool species 

may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, 

and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR. The fact that 

the future management plans would be prcpared only after consultation with 

wildlife agencies does not cure these basic errors under CEQA, since no 

adequate criteria or standards arc set forth. I 10 

The Authority'S approach to mitigating impacts to wetlands is a prime example. The 

Corps and the EPA both commented that the DEIR provided insufficient information for their 

determinations concerning the adequacy of mitigation for impacts to wetlands; other 

commenters echoed these criticisms. I II In response, the Authority treated its development of 

107 See Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)-(2). 

108 See, e.g., 8000760, 763, 784-86 [Bio-MM#5 requires Biological Resources Management 

Plan but lacks specific performance standards; Bio-MM#59 requires Habitat Mitigation and 

Monitoring Plan where "performance criteria will be developed in consultation with the 

permitting agencies"], 795-813 [impacts to biological resources insignificant with mitigation]. 

109 See, e.g., B007964-65, 67 [comment 864-6 and response], 8126-27,34,39 [comments 703-

3,703-16 and responses]. 8202-06, 211-15 [comments 582-9 (bullet #55) and 582-12 (bullets 

#75, 85, 86) and responses], 8318-19, 24 r comments 605-53, 60S-S4, 605-56 and 605-60 and 

responsesJ, 8607,19-21 [comment 717-15 and response], 9191-92. 210-11 [comment 780-S 

and response]; see also H000546 [comments re deficient mitigation measures]. 

110 (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 64S, 670. 

III See 8007649, 52, 7964, 80-81 [commcnts 940-2 and 774-S and responses], 9296-98 

[comment 693-2 and response], 8608,19-21 [comment 717-15 (~(d)) and no response]. 

19. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJlJNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y I 0/2!! 2 e82'i4) #47776~ 3 
205 


Insert offset folio 172 here 81259.172

wetland mitigation measures as if they were only required for Corps and EPA permitting 

2 requirements, and not as a requiremcnt undcr CEQA for good faith analysis and disclosure. I 12 

4 

(6) Failure to Analyze Secondary Impacts Caused by 

Traffic Impact Mitigation 

5 The Authority proposed dozens of roadway modifications as mitigation for traffic 

6 impacts. but summarily concluded that these roadway construction activities would not result in 

7 any secondary impacts.ll3 By summarily disregarding even the possibility of secondary 

8 impacts, the FEIR fails to satisfy CEQA's rcquiremcnts. 114 

9 The DEIR described extensivc traffic mitigation measures that would necessarily cause 

10 impacts, and the FEIR and the Errata to the FEIR added traffic mitigation measures to 

11 roadways throughout the Section area. I IS Modifications to State Route 99 and adding lanes at 

12 dozens of intersections throughout the region will cause traffic. air quality, noise and othcr 

13 impacts that the Authority was required to analyze. I 16 While the FEiR retains the conclusory 

14 statement that none of the traffic mitigation measurcs would cause sccondary significant 

15 effects, the statement is both unsupported by evidence and is obviously false. The FEI R 

16 evidences no effort to analyze the impacts from traffic mitigation measures. I 17 

17 (7) Inadequate Mitigation for Agricultural Impacts 

18 The FEiR proposed only two mitigation measures for agricultural impacts and 

19 concluded that, even after mitigation, these impacts would remain significant." 8 Commenters 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

112 See ibid [responscs to comments 940-2, 774-5,717-15]. 

113 See 8000398; see also 90580, 84 [Transportation Technical Report, with same conclusory 

statements re abscnce of any sccondary impacts and no supporting analysis 1. 

114 Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 CaLAppAth at p. 130 ["'An EIR is required to discuss the 

impacts of mitigation measures"]; see also Guidelines § 15 1 26A(a)( 1 )(0). 

115 See C000454-473; see also 8000399-400. 402. 408-415 [FEIR], 13190 [Errata to FEIR]. 

116 See 8008219-20,22 [comment 590-11 (8ullet #4) and response]; see also H000582-83 

[comments re secondary traffic impacts]. 

117 If it has conducted an analysis of potentially secondary impacts, such an analysis is not 

apparent from the FEIR or from the referenced technical appendix. As such. at the very least. 

the Authority has violated CEQA by not providing the public with roadmap to its analysis. 

118 BOO I 097-11 00. 

20. 

CORRFCTEO MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRA TlVE STA Y W!2!!:2 (18254) #47776fi 3 
206 


Insert offset folio 173 here 81259.173

expressed many concerns regarding the adequacy of proposed mitigation for agricultural land 

2 impacts. 119 Some proposed other specific mitigation measures that could further reduce 

3 impacts to agricultural lands, including a higher ratio for preserving agricultural lands and a 

4 requirement to improve less productive lands. 120 The Authority summarily dismissed these 

5 suggestions without analyzing their feasibility.121 In so doing, the Authority violated CEQA. 122 

6 To make matters worse, atter the release of the FEIR, the Authority converted one of 

7 the two mitigation measures for agricultural impacts, Ag-MM#2, into a "project design 

8 feature. 123 Ag-MM#2 required a program to consolidate remnant farm parccls scvered by the 

9 Section. By changing this mitigation measure into a design feature, the Authority Board 

10 rendered it unenforeeable. 124 This change severely weakened already deficient measures for 

II mitigating impacts to agricultural lands, but staff ignored this concem.125 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(8) Inadequate Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

The analysis of the Section's cumulative impacts failed to consider impacts from the 

neighboring HSR sections. This failure violates the requirement that the cumulative impact 

analysis "reflect a conscientious effort to provide public agencies and the general public with 

adequate and relevant detailed information about [cumulative impacts].',126 

As part ofthe lCS, the adjacent Fresno to Bakersfield section would be concurrently 

built, prior to September 2017, in order to receive maximum federal funding. 127 Thus, near 

119 See B007960 [EP A comment, with no response, re need for additional commitments to 

mitigate ag and community impacts], 8505-07. 15[comment 706-17 and response], 8910,22 

[comment 717-17 and response], 9204, 20 [comment 780-11 (last~) and no response]. 

120 See, e.g., B009131, 37 [comment 616-33 and response]; see also H000572-74. 

121 See ihid.; see also H001007-08 [Staff Response to Issues Raised on Section FEIR]. 

122 See Los Angeles Unified School Disi. v. City (jfLos Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.AppAth 1019, 

1029 [ElR must respond to suggestions for mitigating a significant environmental impacts]. 

123 BO 13208-11 [Errata to FElR]. 

124 See H000577. 

125 HOOI008 [discussing farmland consolidation program without addressing enforceability]. 

126 San Franciscansjor Reasonable Growth v. San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79. 

127 F 146803-04 l Revised 2012 Business Plan]; see also B007853-55 [Response General-12: 

"The ICS will include parts of the Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield sections .... "]; 

see also Exh. B. Limits of Work Map [CPI includes portion of Fresno to Bakersfield section.]. 

21. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 1012/12 (28254) #477766.3 
207 


Insert offset folio 174 here 81259.174

simultaneous construction of this neighboring section is not only reasonably foreseeable, it is 

2 probable. Similarly, the east-west wye connection and the Merced to Sacramento sections arc 

3 also reasonably foreseeable expansions. Each of these flaurc actions/expansions of the HSR 

4 Project clearly should havc becn included in the analysis of cumulativc impacts bccause 

5 environmental review for thcse ncighboring sections is already underway. 128 Yet, the analysis 

6 of the Section's cumulative impacts to almost all resource areas is silent concerning the 

7 contributing cumulative impacts of neighboring scctions.129 

8 This failure is espccially problematic with respect to cumulative impacts to the eities of 

9 Fresno, Chowchilla, and Mcrced because thc junctures between the Section and neighboring 

10 sections are in the middle of these cities. According to the City of Fresno "the split analysis 

II used by the [DEIR] has thc cffcct of assessing only a divided portion of the community ... 

12 which artificially reduces thc significance of impacts and results in less cffective mitigation 

13 measures.,,130 The Authority's method of dividing the Project into sections has resulted in 

14 bisected impact analysis, without regard to the impacts of neighboring sections. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(9) Failure to Respond to All Significant Points Raised in 

Comments 

The Authority violated CEQA's requirement for detailed responses to comments. 131 

The written response shall describe the disposition of signifIcant environmental 

issues raised .... [Tlhe major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's 

position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in comments 

must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions 

128 See San Franciscansfor Reasonable Growth, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 74; see also Exh. 

T, NOPs for neighboring sections of Project. 

129 See 13001342-66 [FEIR, Cumulativc Impacts chaptcr pays scant attention to other sectionsl; 

see also 13008339, 49 [Merced County comment 772-11 (hullet 5) and response]. The FEIR 

adds a conclusory discussion concerning the combined air quality impacts of the two ICS 

sections - providing minimal recognition of an unanalyzed cumulative impact. See BOO 1347 

["Combined with the Fresno to Bakersfield Section and the San Joaquin Valley portion of the 

San Jose to Merced Section, it is possible that the regional pollutant impacts that were less than 

significant before mitigation will be significant, requiring further mitigation'']. 

130 See 13008127, 37 [comment 703-10 and response]. 

IJI § 21091(d)(2); Guidelines § 15088(a). 

22. 

MPA ISO MOTI001 FOR PRELlMI0IARY INJUNCTION! ADMI:-.IISTRA T1VE STA Y 3 
208 


Insert offset folio 175 here 81259.175

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

& 

9 

were not accepted. There must be goodfaith reasoned analysis in response. 

Conclusory statements unsupported by factual injiJrmation will not sUfJice. 132 

By routinely grouping multiple paragraphs of comments within a single numbered "comment," 

the Authority glossed over and failed to address a plethora of important points raised in the 

comments. 13) This approach also thwarted public participation because, typically, a single 

numbered response supposedly jointly addressed many diverse comments, making it very 

difficult at times to find corresponding responses. The Authority's responses to public 

comments do not provide a good faith reasoned analysis to each significant point, as required. 

(10) Failure to Recirculate ErR 

10 Thc Authority failed to recirculate the EIR for public review, despite introducing 

11 significant new information. Recirculation is required when the lead agency adds significant 

12 new information to the EIR after the public comment period has endcd.134 The recirculated 

13 EIR must be subjected to the same "critical evaluation that occurs in the draft stage," to ensure 

14 the public has an "opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed 

15 judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom.,,135 

16 The fEIR includes significant new information that triggers recirculation - it 

17 acknowledges new potentially significant impacts and describes modifications to the Section 

18 that will make impacts in several categories substantially worse. For example, cumulative 

19 impacts to air quality,136 significant construction period visual impacts, and other impacts, are 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

132 Guidelines § 15088(c), emphasis added; see also Santa Clarita Organization/iJr Planning 

the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 722-723 (SCOPE). 

133 See, e.g., H000567-69, 558-561. 538-48 [FEIR comments criticizing inadequate responsesj; 

see also B008375-77, 78 [comment 587-1 and response 1, 8122-25, 28-31,34-36, 39-40 

[comments 703-3 and 703-16 and responses]. &232-35, 52 [comment 708-2 and response]. 

134 Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 131. 

135 Ibid. 

136 Compare COO 1316 [DEIR analysis of cumulative air quality construction impacts silent re 

neighboring sections] wilh BOOl347 [FEIR revised analysis stating these impacts, when 

combined with impacts from neighboring sections, will be significant, requiring mitigation). 

23. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY I 0/2/!2 (28254) 1M.777fiA 3 
209 


Insert offset folio 176 here 81259.176

acknowledged by the Authority for the first time in the FEIR. '37 Section design features first 

2 debuted in the FEIR will also result in more severe impacts. For example, the FEIR announces 

3 that the Section will substitute concrete slab for ballast along much of the alignment. 1J8 More 

4 concrete slab will substantially increase noise impacts; producing the massive additional 

volume of concrete for slab structures will also require substantially more water during 

6 construction. These newly acknowledged and increased impacts trigger EIR recirculation. 119 

7 In response to comments, Authority staff proposed including wildlife crossing 

8 structures as part of the Section's design.'40 Constructing and maintaining these structures will 

9 produce noise, air quality, traffic and other significant impacts (including potentially significant 

10 impacts to some biological resources) - none of which were considered in the analysis. These 

II increased impacts also trigger the requirement for recirculation, as do thc many secondary 

12 significant impacts associated with newly proposed traffic mitigation measures, discussed 

13 above, that were first added in the FEIR.'41 

14 Further, the extensive revisions throughout the FElR provide an independent basis for 

15 recirculation. '42 By so substantially revising the analysis following the comment period, the 

16 Authority deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. 14) 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(11) Improper Use of Errata and Addendum to FEIR 

The Authority impropcrly approved an Addendum and two Errata to the FEIR.'44 

Under Guidelines, section 15164, an addendum may only be used tor a previously certified 

ElR. Because the FEiR had not been certified, the Authority clearly violated CEQA when it 

approved the addendum. 

137 Compare BOOl180 [FEIRl with 8013212 [Errata I to FEIR, changed significance 

determination trom less-than-signiticant to significant]. 

138 B000520 [FEIR}, 9213 [response to Comment 780-8]. 

1)9 See Guidelines § 15088.5. 

140 BOOO 196 [FEIR}. 

141 See H000582-83; see also B000399-400, 402, 408-415 [FEIR]. 

142 See Guidelines § 15088.5(a)(4). 

143 Laurel Heighls 11, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1129. 

144 See A000004 [Resolutions HSRA # 12-191. 

24. 

('ORRfX'TED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUl\iCTION! ADMI:-JISTRATIVE STA Y 10/2/12 (2825..J.) #..j.77766 J 
210 


Insert offset folio 177 here 81259.177

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

The Authority's approval of the two Errata is even more egregious. One of the socalled "Errata" to the FEIR did not simply correct insubstantial errors to the FEIR. as the 

document's title suggests, but made significant substantive changes to both the FEIR's analysis 

and to the recommended mitigation measures. 145 These changes include: 

Deleting Bio-MM# 16. a measure that addressed impacts to trees; 146 

Deleting Bio-MM#62. because it is "[n]o longer required by resource agencies;" 147 

Deleting Bio-MM#63, because "[m]itigation not necessary to address impact;" 148 

Deleting all mitigation measures for impacts Bio#9, Bio# 19, Bio#29 and Bio#39, which 

concerned disturbance of special-status fish species and essential fish habitat because 

these "[ijmpact[s] [were] determined not to be significant;" 149 

Changing SO-MM# I and SO-MM#2 into "project design feature[s];" 150 and 

Changing Ag-MM#2 into a "project design feature."I5I 

12 As one commenter noted, given the nature of these major changes to the FEIR's analysis, the 

13 Authority was required to recirculate a revised EIR for public comments before it could 

14 approve the Section. 152 The Authority board ignored these comments, instead choosing to 

15 characterize the major, substantive changes to the FEIR as "errata." 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(b) Violation of the Open Meeting Act 

The Authority violated the Open Meeting Act by considering and adopting the two 

Errata to the FEIR and the FEIR Addcndum at the final mectings concerning the Section. 

145 See generally BOI3182-220. 

146 B013196 [Erratal. Commenters criticized this measure. See B009201, 18 [comment 780-

10 and response], 8607,19-21 [comment 717-15 and response]. 

147 B013198. 

148 Ibid. 

149 B013198-201; but see 7944-46 [NMFS comment 956-1 and responsej. 7953-54 [Corps 

comment 940-3 (#5) and response: "impacts to essential fish habitat during construction are 

considered ... signiticant under CEQA"j, 7965, 81 [EPA comment 774-6 and response]. 

150 BOI3201-08. Commenters criticized these measures. See B008128-31. 39, 82-83 

[comments 703-16 and 705-3 and responses revising SO-MM#2], 8109-11,14-15 [comments 

456-11 and 456-12 and responses], 9129, 35 [comment 616-16 and responsej. 

151 BOI3208-11. Commenters also criticized this measure. See B00861O, 22 [comment 717-

17 (§(b)) and no response]. 

152 See H000987-91 [Letter to Authority objecting to consideration of Errata and Addendumj. 

25. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 10/2/1 2 (28254) #477706.3 
211 


Insert offset folio 178 here 81259.178

without proper notice. The Open Meeting Act requires all state agencies, including the 

2 Authority, to provide at least 10 days notice of cvery public meeting, with an agenda that 

3 describes the items of business to be transacted or discussed: "No item shall be added to the 

4 agenda subsequent to the provision ofthis notice, unless otherwise permitted by [the Act]:,15) 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The agenda posted by the Authority for the two final meetings only mentioned the 

potential certification of the FEIR and approval of the Section, it was silent with respect to the 

two Errata and the FEIR Addendum. 154 But, as explained in the preceding section, these 

documents are separate documents from the FEIR - the two Errata contained substantive 

changes to the FEIR and an Addendum is clearly a separatc CEQA document. Thus, the 

Authority was required to provide notice of its potential approval ofthese documents at least 10 

days before the tinal meetings, or take required steps to consider them under the narrow 

emergency exccptions to the requirement l55 By failing to do so, the Authority failed to 

adequately inform othcr agencies and the public of all actions it would take at the final 

meetings. Indeed, appropriatc notice may have prevented approval of these illicit documents. 

The remedy tor the Authority's clear violation of the Open Meeting Act is to declare 

the offending actions null and void. "[Government Code] section 11130.3 authorizes the 

nullification and voidancc of an action taken by a state body in violation of the [Act's] notice or 

open-and-public-meeting requirement," where the action was not in substantial compliance 

with the requirements and the challenger can show prejudice. ls6 

Here, the above actions taken by the Authority at its final meeting were not in 

substantial compliance with the Act's objective of ensuring open deliberation and open 

actions. 157 Petitioners, the public, and other agencies were prejudiced by the deticient notice, 

because they were unable to fully prepare tor and address thc numerous substantive changes to 

153 Gov. Code, § 11125(a). 

154 See G001294-95 [agenda for final Board meetings, agenda items #1, 2, 9 and 101. 

155 See Gov. Code, § 11123(a). 

156 Regents of University o/California v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Ca1.4th 509, 527; see also 

North Pacifica LLC v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 166 Cal.AppAth 1416, 1433. 

157 Gov. Code, § 11120. 

26. 

CORRIT7ED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 1012/12 (28254) #t777(j6 J 
212 


Insert offset folio 179 here 81259.179

the FEIR contained in the Addendum and the Errata, as well as the impropriety of any 

2 Addendum to an uncertified EIR, at the final meetings, 

3 Finally, the importance of not sandbagging the public with the Errata at the final 

4 meetings is underscored by the fact that many of the last-minute changes included in the Errata 

5 directly eontradietthc Authority's own responses to public comments on the DEIR.ls8 As 

6 such, the otlending changes, made without notice, hampered intormed public participation. 

7 Thus, Petitioners are likely to prevail on their claim pursuant to the Open Meeting Act 

8 for the offending actions to be nullified. 

9 

10 

2. The Harm to Petitioners if a Preliminary Injunction Is Denied 

Outweighs Any Potential Harm to the Authority from Its Issuance. 

11 Where the party seeking a preliminary injunction makes a sufficiently strong showing 

12 oflikclihood of success on the merits, the Court may issue the injunction even where the 

13 applicant cannot show that the balance of harms tips in its favor. 159 Here, the probability of 

14 Petitioners prevailing on the merits is so high, as discussed above, that the injunction should 

15 issue even were the Court to find that the balance of harms does not tip in their favor. That is 

16 an unlikely event, though, as the balance of harms, in fact. tips strongly in Petitioners' favor. 

17 When the harms involved concern degradation of the environment, they are a matter of 

18 "significant public concern" which must be given due consideration in weighing the balancc of 

19 potential interim harms. l60 The balance of the harms consideration weighs furthcr towards 

20 granting the preliminary injunction in cases where compensation would not afford adequate 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

158 See, e.g., B0081 09-11 , 14-15 [comments 456-11 and 456-12 and responses], 8128-31, 37-

39 [comments 703-11, 703-12 and 703-16 and responses], 8387-88 [comment 689-1 and 

response] 9129-30, 34-36 [comments 616-15, 616-16 and 616-24 and responses]; see also 

8007857-58 [Response General-14, referring to Ag-MM#2J, 7917-18 [Response Land Use-2, 

same], 7925 [Response Agriculture-3, same]. 

159 Common Cause ofCalifv. Board ()fSupervisors (1989) 49 Ca1.3d 432. 447; see also IT 

Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Ca1.3d 63, 69-70; Butt, supra, 4 CaL4th at 677-78. 

160 Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn. v. Stale Waler Resources Control Board (1994) 23 

CaLAppAth 1459, 1472-1473. Federal courts, which apply a similar standard for injunctions, 

have held it is undisputed that "environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be remedied by 

27. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJliNCTION i ADMINISTRATIVE STAY Ion/! 2 (28254) #-1-77766 J 
213 


Insert offset folio 180 here 81259.180

reliefor where a damages remedy is precluded by law. '6' Here, monetary reliefwould be 

2 completely insufficient to compensate Petitioners and the public for the unnecessary, 

3 unmitigated and irreparable interim environmental impacts caused by Section construction. 

4 Taxpayer money wasted by the Authority if the injunction docs not issue also cannot be 

5 remedied by an award ofdamages. '62 This additional factor also weighs in favor ofa 

6 preliminary injunction. Where, as here. a statute expressly provides for injunctive rclief, less is 

7 needed to show that the harms tip in plaintil1's favor since the statute has already detennined 

8 that the public's interest in preventing the violation is stronger than the defendant's interest in 

9 continuing illegal activities. '63 

10 

11 

(a) Petitioners and the Public Will Suffer Substantial 

Intcrim Harm in the Absence of Preliminary 

Injunctive Relief. 

12 Some of the most productive agricultural resources in the nation, inlrastructure owned 

13 by counties, cities, utilities, businesses and individuals, public health, the quality of wildlife 

14 habitat and the public fisc are being and will be irreparably harmed by implementing the 

15 Section. These harms include: (I) unmitigated environmental impacts; (2) immediate and 

16 widespread adverse impacts on the regional economy; (3) violations of public interest laws; and 

17 (4) ongoing waste of taxpayer money. More specifically, the irreparable interim harm that is 

18 occurring and will continue to occur while this lawsuit is pending includes the following: 

19 (1) Adverse and Unmitigated Intcrim Impacts 

20 Impacts to Agriculture: Construction ofCPl, the Section and the rest of the ICS will 

21 severely impact local agricultural resources and the regional economy.'64 As discussed above, 

22 

2J 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i.e. irreparable." Ibid., 

quoting Earth 11land Insf. v. U.S. Forest Service (9th Cir. 2003) 351 FJd 1291, 1298. 

161 Dept. of Fish and Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Jrr. Dist. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1554. 

1565-66. 

162 See Cal. Code ofCiv. Proc., § 526a. Under Section 526a, taxpayers may sue to enjoin 

wastelul expenditures by state agencies. See AhlRren v. Carr (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 248, 256. 

163 IT Corp., supra, 35 Cal.Jd at 72. 

164 See B009129-30~ 34~ 36 [comments 616-7 and 616-24 and responses]. 

28. 

CORRECTED )'1PA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIO;-.J I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 10/2/12 (2ti2S .. 0 #477766 3 
214 


Insert offset folio 181 here 81259.181

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

the FEIR acknowledges some of these impacts, but downplays them and does not include 

adcquate mitigation to address them. The interim harms to agriculture include: 

Uncertainty in planting and harvesting activities, disrupting agricultural lending and 

business planning;16' 

Widespread severance of ROW parcels, leading to decreased crop yields, and 

consequential economic impacts (tor which fair compensation is uncertain), and 

permanent cessation of agricultural activities on some remnant parcels;166 

Adjacent orchards and fields will be harmed by staging yards, construction dust, 

interference with water supply infrastructure and othcr nuisance activities;167 

Relocating dairies will involve onerous new permitting requirements, substantial 

disruption and very high costs;168 and 

Public utilities that deliver water to farms will be impacted by interference with water 

delivery infrastructure during construction and by permanent road c1osures.1 69 

12 Many of these impacts occur well be/ore construction commences the threat ofland 

13 acquisition is enough to interfere with crop financing. 170 

14 Traffic/Air QualitY/Noise Impacts: Construction ofCPl and the rest of the ICS will 

15 substantially increase the already serious traffic and air quality problems in the area. The 

16 Authority'S plans for constructing CPI include many roadway closures and modifications, 

17 including relocating a 2.5 mile section of Ilighway 99 through Fresno. 17I These construction 

18 activities will necessarily cause significant disruption to critical transportation infrastructure, 

19 worsen air quality in a region that already sufTers from some of the worst air pollution in the 

20 country and increase noise to levels that can harm sensitive receptors. The FEIR admits some 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

165 See, e.g., Declaration of Sam Curran in Support of Motion ("Curran Declaration"), ~~ 4-6. 

166 Ibid The demotion of Ag-MM#2 from an enforceable mitigation measure to an 

unenforceable "project design feature" exacerbates this interim harm. 

167 See B009191-92, 9210 [comment 780-5 and response]; see also Declaration of Makram 

Hanna in Support of Motion (,'Hanna Declaration"), ~~ 4-6. 

168 See B008385-86 [comment 840-1 and response], 8499-500,12 [comment 706-12 and 

response] . 

169 See, e.g., B008086-88 [comments 550-1 through 550-4 and responses]. 

170 Curran Dec!., ~~ 4-6. 

171 See Exhs. J through Q [Task Orders describing relocation of roadways and utility 

infrastructure]; see also Exh. R [Resolution HSRA # 12-23 re relocation ofHwy. 99]. 

29. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMI'JISTRATIVE STAY I 0I2/!2 (2R254) t/Q77766.3 
215 


Insert offset folio 182 here 81259.182

of these impacts will occur, but, except with respect to air quality impacts. it did not study the 

2 severity of the impacts, and instead discounted them because they would be temporary.172 

3 Final traffic and noise mitigation measures have not been identified or imposed by the 

4 Authority. There is no assurance that even the insufficiently described measures for these 

impacts will be in place when the Authority begins CP I construction. 

6 (2) Failure To Comply With Public Interest Laws 

7 The legislature enacted CEQA and the Open Meeting Act to maximize protection of the 

8 environment and to ensure public participation in state agency decision-making; these laws 

9 reflect strong public policy concerns.173 The EIR is the "heart" or CEQA, indeed an "an 

10 cnvironmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to 

II cnvironmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return" and "before the 

12 project has taken on overwhelming 'bureaucratic and financial momentum.",174 The courts 

13 repcatedly emphasize thc importance ofthc public's role in the CEQA process.175 

14 Thc Open Mecting Act also declares strong public policies: "public agencies exist to 

15 aid in the conduct of the people's business ... the proceedings of public agencies [must] be 

16 conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.,,176 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

See B000275, tn. 2 [defending curtailed traffic impact analysis], 293, 299-303 [conclusory 

dismissal of significant construction traffic impactsj, 463-464, 470, 502 [construction air 

quality impacts identified as significant, but would be reduced by vaguely dcfined mitigation 

measures]; see also B000537 [dismissal ofsigniticant noise impacts from relocating UPRR 

tracks], 553, 568-569 [list of optional mitigation measures for construction noise impacts]. 

173 See, c.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21000-21003; see also Gov. Code § 11120. 

174 County of 1nyo, supra. 32 Cal.App.3d at p. 810; Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 441, 

quoting Laurel Heights I. supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 395. 

175 See, e.g., Laurel Heights 1, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392; Protect The Historic Amador 

WatelWays v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 1099, 1106 [failure to comply 

with thc law subverts CEQA's purposes ifit prevents inrormed dccisionmaking and informed 

public participation. Case law is clear that, in such cases, the error is prcjudicial"], quoting 

County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 931, 946. 

176 Gov. Code § 11120 [the statute further explains the policies as follows: "The people ofthis 

state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencics which serve them. The people, in delegating 

authority, do not give their public scrvants the right to decide what is good for the people to 

know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that 

they may retain control over the instruments they have created"]. 

30. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y I 0/2/l2 (28254) #-i77766 3 
216 


Insert offset folio 183 here 81259.183

The Petitioners and the public are being irreparably harmed by actions that prevent 

2 proper public participation and responsible decision-making, in violation of these important 

3 public interest laws. By rushing to implement the approvals for the Section before this case is 

4 decided, bureaucratic and financial "momentum [for the approved Section alignmentl will 

5 build" and "consideration ofalternative[sJ ... or additional mitigation measures, ... will be 

6 prejudiced" because the project "will have proceded well beyond the planning stages.,,177 

7 (3) Economic Impacts 

8 CPI, the {CS, the Section and the Project as a whole will adversely affect the largely 

9 agriculturally based economy of the entire region. Increased traffic, noise, pollution and 

to nuisances, and decreased east-west mobility, will adversely affect not only agriculture, but the 

II quality of life that draws farmers, businesses and visitors to the Yalley.m While the Authority 

12 claims that implementing the lCS will bring much needed jobs to the region, the bulk of the 

13 consulting, engineering and construction jobs will be performed by employees of large 

14 companies from outside the region, and will be temporary in nature. 

15 (4) Ongoing Waste of Taxpayer Funds 

16 The Authority's drive to implement the Section approvals in the face of serious 

17 meritorious legal challenges is reckless. In order to make use of allocated federal stimulus 

18 funds, the Authority is rushing to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money during this period of 

19 governmcnt fiscal austerity. The Authority has spent and will continue to spend millions of 

20 dollars each month to fund land surveys and engineering design services provided by outside 

21 consultants to implement the approved but challenged - Seetion.179 Hundreds of millions 

22 more dollars will be spent, starting in early 2013, acquiring parcels along the ROW.ISO The 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

177 See San Joaquin Rap/or 1, supra, 27 Cal.AppAth at p. 742. 

178 See B009129-30 [comments 616-7 and 616-24 re economic multiplier effects and 

responses], 8493-94 [comment 706-8 and response]. 

179 See Exh. U, AECOM's May 2012 Monthly Status Report, pp. 4-5. 

180 The Revised 2012 Business Plan called for the adoption of an ROW Acquisition Plan to 

mitigate the risk of escalating costs. but the ROW Acquisition Plan for the Section is silent with 

respect to a budget and anticipated costs. See F146913-14 [Revised 2012 Business Plan]; see 

31. 

CORRFCT£D MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY I 012112 (2IC~54) #..l777f,(, 3 
217 


Insert offset folio 184 here 81259.184

Authority is reaching agrccments with local jurisdictions for relocating roadways and 

2 infrastructurc that will cost billions ofdollars. 181 Construction of the track and stations will 

3 cost billions more. As the Authority enters into construction contracts for CPI and mastcr 

4 agrccments with local agencies, and as it spends vasts amounts of public money to carry out the 

challenged Section approvals, it will be ever more committcd to thc alignment it has already 

6 approved based on a critically deficient FElR. More public money will be at risk cvcry day the 

7 Authority continues to implement thc Section approvals. These arc precisely the types of major 

8 commitments to the challenged Section that should not be made and must be enjoined. 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(b) Respondents Will Not Be Unduly Harmed by a 

Preliminary Injunction. 

If the Court grants the injunction, Section-related activities will be delayed by at least 

several months. lfthe Court imposes a preliminary injunction but then ultimately rules for 

Respondent in this litigation, it would lift the injunction, allowing Respondent to resume the 

prohibited implementation activities and receive federal reimbursement for its expenditures 

through sometime in2017. 182 While delay in Section implementation could reduce the amount 

of federal reimbursement, this loss is not incvitable indeed, Respondents could potcntially 

accelerate these planned activities to make up for lost time. 

Moreover, the availability of matching federal funds through September 2017 does not 

mean that the Authority should expend these federal funds, especially in the reckless way they 

have been proceeding. When a private project has been challenged on CEQA grounds, 

developers must halt project activity until the lawsuit is resolved, even in the absence of a 

preliminary injunction, if they want to avoid the risk of loss. 183 Here, this substantial risk of 

also Exh. G. The Scope of Work for the RFP exeludes ROW property negotiation and 

acquisition. See Exh. E, p. 9. 

181 Exhs. 1 through Q [Task Orders and summary table]. 

182 Federal bond funds assigned to the ICS will be available for the Authority to spend until 

September 30,2017. See Exh. A, p. 2-108; see also Exh. B, pp. 7-8. 

18) § 21 167.3(b); See, e.g., Bakersfield Citizens/or Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 

124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1203 [developers proceeded at their own risk when relying on contested 

project approvals during the pendency oflitigationJ, citing Guidelines § 15233(b). 

CORRECTFD MPA ISO 10/1/12 (2g~S4) #477766 3 
218 


Insert offset folio 185 here 81259.185

loss is on the already economically stressed taxpayers. yet the Authority is disregarding it 

2 entirely, and risking the waste of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. 

3 c. The Court Should Waive Bond or Impose Only a Nominal Bond. 

4 Petitioners respectfully request that the Court waive the bond requirement, to the extent 

5 it may apply to the non-public agency Petitioners, 184 or, in the alternative, require only a 

6 nominal bond pursuant to its discretion granted in Code of Civil Procedure Section 529. 185 The 

7 trial court's function in determining the sufficiency of a bond or undertaking "is to estimate the 

8 harmful effect that the preliminary injunction is likely to have on the restrained party, and to set 

9 the undertaking at that sum:' As explained above, here, Respondents would sutTer either no or 

1 0 minimal financial harm should the injunction be granted and, thus, a bond waiver or a nominal 

1\ bond is warranted on this ground alone. 

12 The fact that Petitioners' claims seek to protect the environment further supports this 

13 request Federal courts have consistently held that no injunction bond, or at most only a 

14 nominal bond, should be imposed in environmental litigation, even where an enjoined 

15 defendant may suffer substantial economic loss as a result of the injunction. 186 This federal 

16 authority is grounded on two primary principles: (I) the public interest in preserving the 

17 environment pending a hearing on the merits can be more significant than the defendant's 

18 economic interest and (2) any substantial bond requirement could "effectively deny access to 

19 judicial review" or "close the courthouse door in public interest litigation by imposing a 

20 burdensome security requirement on plaintiffs who otherwise have standing" to raise an 

21 environmental challenge. I 87 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

184 Public agency plaintiffs, such as the County and CWD, are not required to post an 

undertaking in order to obtain an injunction. See Code ofCiv. Proc. §§ 529(b)(4), 995.220. 

185 See Conover v. Hall (1974) II Cal.3d 842,851 [courts have discretion to dispense with 

bond requirementsJ. 

186 See, e.g., People ex rei. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (9th Cif. \985) 

766 F.2d 1319, 1325-1326 [upholding decision to not require any bond]; Friends of/he Earth. 

Inc. v. Brinegar (9th Cif. 1975) 518 F.2d 322. 323 [substantially reducing bond requirement].) 

187 See ibid.; see also Save S/rawberry Canyon v. Dept. of Energy (N .D. CaL 2009) 613 

F'supp.2d 1177, 1191; see also Mangini v. JG. Durand Intn'l (1994) 31 CaLApp.4th 214, 218. 

33. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELlMII\ARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 10/2112 (28254) #477766 .1 
219 


Insert offset folio 186 here 81259.186

In Mangini v. J G. Durand, the court found it appropriate to follow federal cases 

2 allowing a bond waiver or nominal bond in environmental cases in which a bond would 

3 effectively "deny access to judicial review.'·18R In Mangini, the Court denied the waiver 

4 because the plaintiff there was a for-profit entity that would suffer no appreciable financial 

5 hardship from posting bond. Hcrc, however, the Madera FB. Merced FB and POH are all 

6 nonprofit corporations with limited financial resources and Fagundes Parties, a representative 

7 farming family in the case for many others similarly situatcd, should not be asked to post a 

8 bond. The imposition of a substantial bond on most of the Petitioners' in this case would 

9 cffectively deny access to judicial review of Respondents' actions. 

10 D. Alternatively, a Stay Should Issue. 

11 Quasi-adjudicatory agency actions arc reviewed by administrative mandate pursuant to 

12 Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 and quasi-legislative acts are reviewed by traditional 

13 mandate pursuant to CCP section 1085189 The Authority'S actions with respect to the Section 

14 could be considered quasi-adjudicatory within thc parameters of section 1094.5 because they 

15 concerned the application of laws and policies to a set of facts. On the other hand, becausc the 

16 Authority was not required by law to hold a public hearing prior to approving the Section, the 

17 actions may be considered quasi-legislative. loa Petitioners' primary Motion and altcrnative 

18 Application follow from these interpretations. If the Court determines that the actions were 

19 quasi-adjudicatory subject to administrative mandate, then a stay, rather than an injunction, 

20 would be the proper alternative form of interim relief. 

21 Section 1094.5(g) prcsumes thc appropriatcness of a stay "of the operation ofthe 

22 administrative order or decision ... [unless] the court is satisfied that it is against the public 

23 interest." This language confers a rebuttable presumption that a stay should issue. Such stays 

24 are common in land use litigation. Section I 094.5(g) does not require a showing that the 

25 petitioner will likely prevail on the merits or a balancing of hardships instead, a Court should 

26 

27 

28 

188 Mangini, supra, 31 Cal.AppAth at pp. 217-220 [pointing out two prior published decisions 

adopting federal rule that were subsequently ordered depublished by Supreme Courtj. 

189 Western Slates Petroleum Assn v. Superior Court (1995) 9 CalAth 559, 566-567. 

34. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELI'vIlNARY INJUNCTION / ADMINISTRATIVE STAY ]012112 e8254) #477766 3 
220 


Insert offset folio 187 here 81259.187

deny a stay only where it determines that a stay is against the public interest. Thus, the criteria 

2 for a stay under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1094.5(g), are less stringent than the criteria 

3 for a preliminary injunction under Code of Civil Procedure, sections 525-527. 

4 Here, despite its length and complexity, the FEIR in this case is a "mass of flaws," akin 

5 to those in cases where a stay has been granted. 19I A stay would not be against the public 

6 interest - on the contrary, a stay would avoid the irreparable harm to the public that would 

7 otherwise occur. Thus, Petitioners alternatively request a stay of the Authority's approvals 

8 under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, and other appropriate remedies. 

9 IV. CONCLUSION 

10 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant this 

II motion, and enjoin Respondents from taking any actions to implement the Section of the 

12 Project until the case can be heard and decided on its merits. 

13 Dated: October 3, 2012 FITZGERALD ABBOTT & BEARDSLEY LLP 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

)90 See Guidelines § 15087(i). 

BY~ Attorneys for PetitionersIPlaintiffs County of 

Madera, Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced 

County Farm Bureau, Preserve Our Heritage, 

Chowchilla Water District, and Fagundes Parties 

)91 See, e.g., San Joaquin Raptor I, supra, 27 Cal.AppAth at 74 L 

35. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y )0/2/)2 (28254) #477766 3 
221 


Insert offset folio 188 here 81259.188

EXHIBIT 1 
222 


Insert offset folio 189 here 81259.189

CfB 

PRACTICE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 

Second Edition 

March 2012 Update 

Filing Instructions 

This packet contains replacement pages to be interleafed in the 

main text, including complete replacements of chapters 1 and the 

Tables and Index sections. The Glossary and Directory have been 

eliminated and the information has been incorporated into the text; 

please discard the tabs and text for them. Previous· updates were 

published in February 2009, January 2010, and January 2011. 

Volume 1 

Remove old pages 

Front Matter 

Title page-Masthead page 

Contents (tab) 

vii-xxi 

1. Overview of CEQ A Process (tab) 

1-54.1 

Insert new pages 

same 

vii-xxv 

1-54.20 

PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR VOLUME IS COMPLETE 

BEFORE RECYCLING DISCARDED PAGES 
223 


Insert offset folio 190 here 81259.190

___________ 12 __________ _ Project Description, Setting, 

and Baseline 

I. HIGHLIGHTS §12.1 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

A. Legal Requirements §12.2 

B. Level of Detail Required §12.3 

C. Need Not Include Information Not Required by 

Guidelines §12.4 

D. Location in EIR §12.5 

E. Checklist: Project Description §12.6 

F. Adequacy Requirements for Project Description 

1. Description Must Be Accurate §12.7 

2. Description Must Include All Components of 

Project §12.8 

3. Description Must Include Future Phases of Project That 

Are Consequence of Project Approval 

a. Description Must Include Foreseeable Future Activities 

That Are Consequence of Project Approval §12.9 

b. Description Need Not Include Uncertain Future 

Activities §12.10 

4. Description Must Be Stable and Consistent §12.11 

G. Technical Requirements for Project Description 

1. Location, Boundaries, and Maps §12.12 

2. Statement of Objectives §1Z.13 

3. Description of Project's Technical, Economic, and 

Environmental Characteristics §12.14 

4. List of Intended Uses of EIR §12.15 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SEITING AND BASELINE §12.16 

A. Legal Requirements for Setting Discussion §12.11 

B. Format for Describing Environmental Setting §12.18 

C. Determination of the Baseline 

1. General Rule: Existing Physical Conditions §12.19 

575 

3/12 
224 


Insert offset folio 191 here 81259.191

§12.7 Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act • 580 

Include reasonably foreseeable activities associated with the 

project (see §§12.9-12.10); and 

Be consistent throughout the EIR (see § 12.11). 

To comply with the technical and formal requirements of 14 Cal 

Code Regs § 15124, a project description must include: 

The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project 

(see §12.12); 

A detailed map, preferably topographical, and a map showing 

the project's location in a regional perspective (see § 12.12); 

A statement of project objectives (see §12.13); 

A general description of the project's technical, economic, 

and environmental characteristics (see §12.14); and 

A statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including: 

A list of agencies expected to use the EIR (see §12.15); 

and 

A list of approvals for which the EIR will be used (see 

§12.15). 

F. Adequacy Requirements for Project 

Description 

§12.7 1. Description Must Be Accurate 

The project description must be accurate. County of Inyo v City 

of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CA3d 185, 199, 139 CR 396. An accurate 

description is necessary to determine the scope of environmental 

review. In County of Inyo, the court noted (71 CA3d at 192): 

Only through an accurate view of the project may affected 

outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's 

benefit against· its environmental cost, consider mitigation 

measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal 

(i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives 

in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description 

is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient 

EIR. 

The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked 

to the adequacy of the EIR's analysis of the project's environmental 

effects. If the description is inadequate because it fails to discuss 

the complete project, the environmental analysis will probably reflect 

1/11 
225 


Insert offset folio 192 here 81259.192

581 • Project Description, Setting, and Baseline §12.8 

the same mistake. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v Regents 

of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376, 253 CR 426 (EIR failed to 

describe or analyze project accurately). For example, in San Joaquin 

Raptor Rescue Ctr. v County of Merced (2007) 149 CA4th 645, 

57 CR3d 663, an EIR alternately indicated that a mining expansion 

project would and would not substantially increase annual production 

capacity. This shifting project description affected the EIR's analysis, 

because the EIR did not evaluate the impact of higher production 

levels. 149 CA4th at 656. Similarly, in Communities for a Better 

Env't v City of Richmond (2010) 184 CA4th 70, 80, 108 CR3d 

478, an EIR contained conflicting statements about whether an oil 

refinery expansion would substantially increase the production of 

higher-sulfur crude oil types at the refinery. The court held that, 

as a result, the EIR failed to provide an· accurate analysis of project 

impacts. See also San Joaquin RaptorlWildlife Rescue Cfr. v County 

of Stanislaus (1994) 27 CA4th 713, 32 CR2d 704. 

§12.8 2. Description Must Include All 

Components of Project 

The entire project being proposed for approval (and not some 

smaller aspect of it) must be described in the EIR. A complete 

project description is necessary to ensure that all of the project's 

environmental impacts are considered. City of Santee v County of 

San Diego (1989) 214 CA3d 1438, 1450, 263 CR 340. A lead 

agency may not split a single large project into small pieces so 

as to avoid environmental review of the entire project. Orinda Ass'n 

v Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 CA3d 1145, 1171, 227 CR 688. 

EIR project descriptions have been rejected as inadequate because 

the court concluded that the EIR attempted to limit the scope of 

environmental review by artificially narrowing the project description, thus minimizing the project's impacts and undercutting public 

review. Courts have held EIRs to be inadequate because the project 

was too narrowly defined in cases such as: 

• An EIR for county detention facilities that understated the likely 

duration of temporary detention facilities, thus minimizing traffic and other impacts. See City of Santee v County of San 

Diego, supra. 

• An EIR for a university medical center that failed to describe 

1/11 
226 


Insert offset folio 193 here 81259.193

§12.B Practice Under the California Enyironmental Quality Act • 582 

accurately, or to analyze fully, the impacts of moving laboratories to an existing building. The EIR, described .the project 

as occupying only part of the building even though the university had already decided to occupy the entire facility.~ See Laurel 

Heights Improvement Ass'n v Regents of Univ. of Cal: (1988) 

47 C3d 376, 253 CR 426. 

• An EIR for a housing project that did not include construction 

of sewer lines and expansion of a wastewater treatment plant 

designed toserve the project. SanJoaq~in, f\aptor/WzldlifeRescue Ctr. v County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 CA.4th 713,. 32 CR2d 

70'1:. 

• An EIR for a city general plan amendment and rezoning that 

failed to describe or analyze the impacts of development that 

would follow annexation. to the city. See Rural Land Dwners 

Ass'n v City Council (1983) 143 CA3d 1013, 1024, 192 CR 

325. 

• A revised EIR for a water ~xport plan tha.t failed to dt?scribe 

or analyze surface ·wate'rimpacts .. 'see CQunty of Inyo v City 

of Los Angeles (1981) 124 CA3d 1, 7, 177 CR 479. 

• An EIR for a .. sand and gravel mine that failed to describe 

or analyze the construction of water pipelines to serve the min<:, 

when they were an integral part of the project. See. Santiago 

County Water Dist. v Cpunty of Orange (1981) 118 CA3d 

818, 830, 173 CR 602. 

• An EIR for oil facilities that failed to anaIyze the impact of 

pipelines to service the facilities. See Whitman v Board of 

Supervisors (1979) 88 CA3d 397, f51 CR 866. 

• An EIR ~or water export that failed to describe. or to analyze 

groundwater exports and instead sought· to characterize expanding groundwater exports as a separate, ongoing project. See 

County of Inyo v City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CA3d 185, 

193, 139 CR 396. 

A proposal that is related to ,a project but has independent utility 

and is not necessary for. the project to proceed need not be included 

as part of the project description and ~ay be reviewed in its own 

EIR, as a separate project. Communities for a Better Env't v City 

of Richmond (2010)184 CA4th 70, 108 CR3d 478. See also Planning 

1/11 
227 


Insert offset folio 194 here 81259.194

583 • Project Description,Setting, and Baseline §12.S 

& Conserv. LeagueiJiCastaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 CA4th 

210, 237, 103"CR3d U4;Delj Mar Terrace :Conservancy, Inc. v 

City Council (1992) 10 CA4th 712,736,'::t~ CR2d 785. 

Although an EIR must examine the impacts of utilities andothef 

infrastructure to be constructed to serve the project, it need not 

examine the impacts of facilities that are planned independently of 

the project. In Anderson First Coalition v City of Anderson (2005) 

130 CA4th 1173,' 30 CR3d'738, the court rejected 'arguments that 

an EIR on a comrnercialproject improperly "segmented" the project 

because it did Iiofeva.luate, asa component of the proj'ect, interchange 

improvements required to mitigate cumlliative traffic impacts. The 

interchange improvements were based oil the cumulative impa.cts 

of several projects, would service the entire sillfoundiiig area,and 

would not change the scope;,or"nature of, the" project. 

'Similarly,in Towards Responsibility in' Planning v City Council 

(1988) 200 CA3d 671, 246 CR 317, the petitioner argued that an 

EIR should, have' evaluated' the environmental impacts of the expansion of a wastewater treatment pialltdesigned to serve the project 

area; Noting that the size and nature of any plant expansion was 

within the control of a separate agency, the court concluded that 

it would be unreasonable to expect' the EIR . "to produce detailed 

information about the·'environmental' impacts of a future regional 

facility 'Whose' scope is uncertain: and which will in any case be 

subject to' its bwnenvironmental 'review." 200 CA3d at 681. 

WhenYa' pr6ject will' b'e 'implemented in phases, the EIR is not 

deficient siniply~ because the description of future approvals is not 

precisely detmed, Thus in Sierra Club v City of Orange (2008) 

:t63 CA4th'523, 533, 78 CR3d 1, the court upheld the EIR's description of theptoject even though it did not precisely define what 

areaS the dty'would annex in the future.'The project site, the project 

boundary; and' the dty's sphere df influence were fully described, 

but the EIR noted that the city had nOt yet determined the boundaries 

of the area to be 'annexed because the city would later decide what 

parts of the project's open space would remain within the courtty: 

The court upheld the EIR's, project' description; reasoning that agencies are not'required to grant a blanket approval' of the entire project 

described iIi the EIR and have the flexibility to approve the portion 

of the project that satisfies 'their environmental concerns, 

A different situatiori is presented when an activity is proposed 

and designed as a component of the project studied in the EIR, 

1/11 
228 


Insert offset folio 195 here 81259.195

§12.8 Practice Under the Cg.lifornig. !=nvironmental QUi3.lity Aot • 584 

but it will have to be approved by anotheragepcy. In such a situation, 

the EIR on the main project should examilleallcomponents necessary 

to the project, including those that will have. to be approved by 

the other .agency acting as a responsible agency. See Riverwatch 

v County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA4th 1428, 91 CR2d 322 (EIR 

for mining project contained all necessary information for state highway widening to mitigate project impacts as component of mining 

project). See also Santiago County Water Dist.,v County of Orange 

(1981) 118 CA3d 818, 830, 173 CR 602. 

In National Parks & Conserv. Ass'n v CCiuntyQj Riv(Jrside (1996) 

42 CA4th 1505, 50 CR2d 3;39, the. court rejected claims that an 

EIR fOT a regional solid waste .landfill was requjred ,to include solid 

waste transfer stations· that would sort, recycle, . and compact the 

solid waste before sending it to the landfill, holding, that the transfer 

stations were not critical elements of the . landfill project. 42 CA4th 

at 1519. Citing No Oil, Inc. v City oj Los Angeles (1987)196 

CA3d 223, 2;36, 244'. CR 37, the court stated generally that discussion 

of a support facility for a project is not rfjqllir~ in the EIR for 

that project jf (1) "obtaining more detailed usefuHnformation is 

not meaningfully possible" whfjn the. project EIR is prep<!Tedand 

(2) "it is not .necessary to have such additi.onal information at an 

earlier stage" in deciding whether to proceed with the project in 

question. National Parks & Conserv. A.ss:n, 42CA4th .aU518. Applying the first test, the court nded that obtaining more information 

on the transfer stations was not meaningfuUy possible because. the 

location of the facilities was not known and thus PQtentiaLimpacts 

at such sites could not be evaluated ip the landfill EIR. 4Z'CA4th 

at 1519. Applying t)le second test, the court ruled tbat additional 

information about the transfer stations was not neoessary for the 

decision on the landfill because the transferstatiops would pot change 

the scope or nature of the landfill project. 42 CA4tb, at 1520. 

An agency may, '.however, ele!?,t to complete a single.EIR for separate projects when there is a reasonable basis for doing so, and combining the separate projects for review will not lead to confusion. 

In Neighbors of Cavit~ Ranch v County of Placer (2003) 106 CA4th 

1092,131 CR2d 379, the county had prepared a single EIRevaluating 

a low-density residential development on one part of the property, 

and a new church on another part, following submittal of a single 

application for the two proposals. The cOlJnty later decided to consider 

the proposals as independent projects, and separately certified the 

1/11 
229 


Insert offset folio 196 here 81259.196

585 • Project Description, Setting, and Baseline §12.9 

EIR for each project. Opponents of the church argued that the county 

violated CEQA by including two projects in a single EJR and certifying the same EIR twice. The court ruled that, in the absence of a 

showing that such a procedure would lead to confusion, CEQA does 

not prohibit the inclusion of distinct projects requiring different governmental approvals in a single EIR. 106 CA4th at 1103. 

§12.9 

3. Description Must Include Future 

Phases of Project That Are 

Consequence of Project Approval 

a. Description Must Include Foreseeable 

Future Activities That Are Consequence 

of Project Approval 

A project description must include all relevant parts of a project, 

including reasonably foreseeable future expansion or other activities 

that are part of the project. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v 

Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376, 253 CR 426. See 

§12.1D. See also 14 Cal Code Regs §15126 (EIR's impact analysis 

must consider all phases of project). In Laurel Heights, the court 

set forth the standards for determining whether reasonably foreseeable 

future activities must be included in an EIR project description and 

for determining whether the impacts of those activities must be analyzed in the EIR. The court established a two-pronged test (47 C3d 

at 396, 253 CR at 433): 

We hold that an EIR must include an analysis of the 

environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: 

(1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial 

project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be 

significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature 

of the initial project or its environmental effects. 

In Laurel Heights, the University of California planned to transfer 

medical laboratories to an office building in a residential neighborhood. Initially, the laboratories were to occupy 100,000 square feet 

of a 354,000-square-foot building. The University claimed that it 

had not formally decided to occupy the entire building, but the 

court noted that statements by the chancellor in the final EIR, public 

releases in newsletters, public meeting minutes, and private correspondence all indicated the University's intent to occupy the entire 

building when another agency's lease expired in several years. Ac1/11 
230 


Insert offset folio 197 here 81259.197

§12.16 Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act • 594 

simply to list those approvals rather thanJo. discuss them in detail. 

Native Sun/Lyon Communities,;v City of Escpn,digo(199~),15CA4th 

892, 909, 19 CR2d 344. In Native Sun; an lInusualca$e:<!rising 01)t 

of a developer's challenge to a project denial and related claims that 

an adequate EIR was not prepared in connection with the project 

denial, the court held that the EIR need not discuss a development 

agreement in detail as part of the project descri.ption. Instead; it was 

sufficient simply to list the development agreement as anapprqvat. 

PRACTICE TIP> The list of project approvals should be as broad 

as possible. The list should contain a catchall provisiol} explaining that the purpose of the EIR is to analyze the development 

or' activity and that theEIR is intended to apply to all listed 

project approvals as well as to any other approvals necessary 

or desirable to implement the project. Ifa future approval is 

clearly part of the project that was analyzed in the EIR, a 

lead or responsible agency's decision that no subsequent EIR 

is required will be upheld as long as that decision is supported 

by substantial evidence. See chap 19. 

§12.16 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SElliNG AND BASELINE 

An EIR must describe e:;dstiIig!envitoilment~ conditions in the 

vicinity of the propo,sed project, which; is referred to as. the. "environmental setting" for the project, ,14 Cal Code Regs §151Z5. See 

§§12.17-12.18. This descriptio}} of existing environmental conditions 

serves as the ."baseline" for measuring the changes to the environment 

that will result from the project and for determining whether those 

environmental effects are signifi~t. 14 Cal Code Regs§§15125, 

15126.2(a). See §§12.19..,12.26. 

§12.17 A. Legal ReqUirements 'for Setting Discussion 

An EIR must describe the environmental setting for the project, 

which is made up of "the physical environment~l cOfiditions in the 

vicinity of the project" viewed from "a local and regional perspective." 14 Cal Code Re;gs §1512S(a), (c). Environmental. conditions 

must be described as they exist when the notice of preparation is 

published or, if a notice of preparation has not been published, at 

the time the environmental analysis begins. 14 Cal Code Regs 

§15125(a). These existing physical conditions "will normally consti3/12 
231 


Insert offset folio 198 here 81259.198

595 • ·Project Description, Setting, and Baseline §12.17 

tute the· baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact .. is -significant."; .14 Cal Code Regs 

§15125(a). See Communities for a Better/inv't, v, South Coast Air 

Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48C4th 310, 320, 106 CR3d 502. 

An BIR's description of this environmental setting should be sufficiently comprehensive to allow the project's significant impacts "to 

be considered in the full environmental context." 14 Cal Code Regs 

§15125(c). The description should, however, be .no longer than necessary to provide an understanding of the significant effects of the 

project and of the alternatives analyzed iI). the EIR. 14 Cal Code 

Regs§15125(a).The description should place special emphasis on 

environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region and 

that would be affected by the project. .14 Cal Code Regs §15125(c). 

A description of important environinentalresources that will be 

adversely affected by the project is critical to a legally adequate 

discussion of the environmental setting. Thus, in San Joaquin Raptor/ 

Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v CoufI;tyof Stanislaus- (1994) 27 CA4th 713, 

32 CR2d 704, the court found an BIR'l' .. description .of the environmental setting detic;~ent because it did not disclose the specific locationand extent of ripari'an .habitat adjacent to the property, inadequately investigated· tbe possibility of wetlands on the site, 

understated the significance .of the project's location adjacent to a 

river, and failed to discuss ,a nearby wildlife preserve. Similarly, 

the court in Galante Vineyards v Mon,terey Peninsula Water Mgmt. 

Dist. (1997) 60 CA4thll09, 1122, 71 CR2d 1, found that a generalized reference to adjaqent vineyards that. could be affected by the 

project was an inadequate descriptionofJhe environmental setting. 

See also County 0/ Amador v F,J Dorado County Water Agency 

(1999) 76 CA4th 931, 955, 91 CR2dl;l6 (description of environmental 

setting should be sufficiently clear. to. allow informed comparison 

of preproject andpo~tproject conditions). 

Specific information about particular characteristics of the environmental setting may be required when necessary to determine. the significance of an impact. In Cadiz Land Co. v Rail Cycle (2000) 83 CA4th 

74, 94, 99 CR2d 378, tbe court rejected the EIR's description of the 

environmental setting fora landfill project because it did not quantify 

the volume of water in the aquifer underlying the site. The courtruled 

that this information was critical to a full understanding of the significanceof potential contamination on a valuable resource. 

These court decisions underscore the importance of the BIR's 

3/12 
232 


Insert offset folio 199 here 81259.199

§12.17 Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act • 596 

descripti()nof the enviroI1mental 'setting as the starting point for 

the impact analysis. It should not be tak0H to mean, however, that 

the description of the environmental setting 'must be as comprehensive and detailed as the impact analysis. The emphasis; shouldne 

placed on sensitive environmental resources on the project sit,e as 

well as on those nearby that might be adversely affected by the 

project. Other characteristics ofthe environmental setting in the area 

need, be discussed only to the extent necessary to understand the 

significant effects of the project and its alternatives. 14 Cal Code 

Regs §15125(a), (c). See also'California Oak Found. v Regents 

of Univ. of Cal. (2010) 188 CA4th 227; 263,115 CR3d 631 (rejecting 

claim that analysis of baseline conditions relating to earthquake fault 

were inadequate because ErR did not include copy of supporting 

fault rupture stUdy then in progress ); But see Friends of the Eel 

River v Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108CA4th 859, 874, 

134 CR2d 322 (referring to omissionbfpotential effects of related 

proposed future projeCt as 'incomplete description of environmental 

setting). For examples of adequate di'scussions of the environmental 

setting,' practitioners should review Cadiz Land Co. v' Rail 'Cycle, 

supra, in which the court considered' ,the environmental setting de~ 

scription in several different parts' of the EIR. Although the C()urt 

rejected the description 'of the groundwater setting, as discussed 

'alJove, the court upheld other, descriptions of the . environmental' setting. For example, the court distinguished Galante Vineyards in holdingthat the EIR adequately described nearby agricultural lands, including the location of those' lands and their distance from the project 

site. 83 CA4tfi at 90. The Cadiz Court also upheld the discussion 

of the geologic setting, which was based on expert geologic studies, 

mapping, and reports. 83 CA4th at 99. The fact that other experts 

disagreed with this assessment did not render the description of 

the setting inadequate, under the' general rule that the existeI1ceof 

differing opinions is riot gr'ounds for ruling that an ErR is inadequate. 

83CA4th at 104. ' 

PRACTICE TIP>: The level of analysis for the discussion of the 

3/12 

environmental setting should be kf<yyd to the level of analysis 

requiryd for the r~lev,ant project impacts. For example, if an 

impact ,must be quantified to determine whether it, is significant, 

it may be desirable for the EIR, to include the same type of 

data in its desc;ription of the existing setting. Conversely, if 
233 


Insert offset folio 200 here 81259.200

597 • Project Description, Setting, and Baseline §12.19 

a general discussion of an environmental impact is sufficient, 

a general description of the environmental setting should be 

appropriate; When a quantified analysis is required, an EIR 

may include the quantified baseline information in the sections 

of the EIR that evaluate the impact rather than in the discussion 

of the environmental setting. 

§12.18 B. Formal for Describing Environmental , Setting 

TheCEQA,Guidelines specify no format or 10,cation for the EIR's 

dis.cussion of environmental setting. See 14 Cal Code Regs § 15125. 

In most EIRs; the .environmental setting is discussed separi\tely for 

each category of environmental impact. Thus, there are often separate 

descriptions of the environmental .setting in the EIR sections on, 

e.g., land. use, traffic, and noise. To meet the requirement that the 

setting be described from both a local and 'a regional perspective 

(14 Cal Code Regs §15125), some EIRs use subheadings, such as 

"Local Setting" and "Regional Setting" in these sections. Also, some 

EIRs' include general information on the local and regional setting 

as part of, a combined chapter with the, project description and then 

include more detailed setting information as needed to establish the 

baseline for a particular impact in the, same section of the EIR as 

the impact analysis. A summary description of the existing environmental setting in the body of the EIR is sufficient when the underlying data and analysis, ate contained in an appendix to the BlR. Sierra 

Club v City of Orange (2008) 163 CA4th 523, 540, 78 CR3d 1. 

§12.19 

C. Determination Of the Baseline ',' ' . 

1. General Rule: Existing Physical 

Conditions 

In determining whether a project's impacts are significant, an 

EIR ordinarily compares thOse impacts with preproject environmental 

conditions, 'which are referred· to as the "baseline" ,for t~e' impact 

im<ilYsis. Communities for a Better Env't v South Coast Air Quality 

Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 C4th 310, 106 CR3d 502. The provisions 

of the CEQA Guidelines on setting the environmental baseline are 

included in the guideline governing the environmental setting (14 

Cal Code Regs §15125(a)) and the guideline governing analysis 

3/12 
234 


Insert offset folio 201 here 81259.201

PROOF OF SERVICK - c.c.P. §§1011 - 1013a 

2 I. the undersigned. declarc: I am cmployed in the County of Alameda. State of 

3 California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. I am employed by 

4 Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley LLP, located at 122 I Broadway, 2 I s, Floor, Oakland, CA 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

94612. I am readily familiar with this firm's business practice of processing of documents for 

service. 

On October 3, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of the following document(s): 

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ALTERNATIVE 

APPLICA nON FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

on all the following interested parties, by causing service by the method indicated below: 

Kamala D. Harris 

Daniel L. Siegel 

Jamcs W. Andrew 

Danae J. Aitchison 

Jcssica E. Tucker-Mob! 

Office of the California Attorney General 

1300 I Street, 15'h Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: 916-323-1722 

Facsimile: 916-327-2319 

Email: .Jamcs.Andrew@doj.ca.gov; 

Danae.Aitchison@doj.ca.gov; 

Jessica. TuckerMohl@doj.ca.gov 

James G. Moose 

Sabrina V. Teller 

Remy Moosc Manley, LLP 

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: 916-443-2745 

Facsimile: 916-443-9017 

Email: jmoose@rmmenvirolaw.com; 

steller@rmmenvirolaw.com 

19 Attorney for Respondent I Defendant 

California High Speed Rail AutllOri(V 

Attorneyfor Respondent I Defendant 

California High Speed Rail Authority 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 36. 

. CURRFClloU ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION! ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y 
235 


Insert offset folio 202 here 81259.202

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Charles W. Reese 

Kris A. Cox 

Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Firstman 

300 Lakeside Drive, 24th Floor 

Oakland, California 94612-3524 

Telephone: 510-835-9100 

Facsimile: 510-451-2170 

Email: creese@wulfslaw.com; 

kcox@wulfslaw.com 

Attorney for Petitioner City of Chowchilla 

(Case No. 34-2()I2-8()()()1166) 

Douglas V. Thornton 

Craig A. Tristao 

Perkins, Mann & Everett, Inc. 

7815 N. Palm Aveuue, Suite 200 

Fresno, California 93711 

Telephone: 559-447-5700 

Facsimile: 559-447-5600 

Email: dthornton@pmelaw.com; 

ctristao@pmelaw.com 

Attorneyfor Petitioner Timeless 

Illvestmellts, Inc., Millennium Acquisitions, 

Inc., Horizon Enterprises, G.P. and 

Everspring Alliance .• L.P. (Case No. 34-

2() 12-8()()() 1168) 

Thomas E. Ebersole 

Cota Cole LLP 

730 North I Street, Suite 204 

Madera, California 93637 

Telephone: 559-675-9006 

Facsimile: 559-675-9050 

Email: tebersole@cotalawfirm.com 

Attorney /i" Petitioner City of Chowchilla 

(Case No. 34-2()12-8()()()1166) 

U.S. Mail- By placing a copy of said document(s) in a sealed envelope with postage 

20 thereon tully prepaid, and depositing said envelope with the U.S. Postal Service, 

following this firm's business practices. 

21 

22 

23 

x 

Overnight Delivery - By placing a copy of said document(s) in a sealed pre-paid 

overnight envelope or package and depositing said envelope or package today in a box 

or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier, following this 

firm's business practices. 

24 Personal Service - By personally delivering said documents(s) in an envelope or 

package clearly labeled to identify the attorney/party located at the office(s) of the 

25 addressee(s) stated above. 

26 Facsimile - By placing a true copy thereof into a facsimile machine to the fax number 

stated above, as agreed upon, in writing, by the parties. 

27 

28 37. 

MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION i ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 
236 


Insert offset folio 203 here 81259.203

x Electronic Service - By electronically sending a copy of said document(s) to the 

2 II~~L-attorney ________________________________________________ or party as stated above and as agreed upon, in writing, by the parties. ~I 

3 I declare under the penalty of perjury under laws of the State of California that the 

4 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 3, 2012, at Oakland, California. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Aileen N. Hodgkin 

38. 

CORRECTED MPA ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I ADMINISTRATIVE STA Y l 0/2112 {2.s~S4) #477766 3 
237 


Insert offset folio 204 here 81259.204

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Field Hearing in Madera, CA titled "Oversight of California High Speed Rail." 

May 28,2013 

Statement of Louis S. Thompson 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Louis S. (Lou) Thompson, 

Chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group. I am happy to appear at your 

invitation and hope that the experience and work of the Peer Review Group (the Group) will be 

useful to you in your deliberations on this important topic. 

The role of the Group is established in State law. When the voters approved the Proposition IA 

bond measure in 2006, the State Legislature passed AB3034 that required that "'the Authority 

shall establish an independent peer review group for the purpose of reviewing the planning, 

engineering, financing, and other elements of the authority's plans and issuing an analysis of the 

appropriateness and the accuracy of the authority'S assumptions and an analysis of the viability 

of the authority's financing plan, including the flmding plan for each corridor required pursuant 

to subdivision (b) of Section 2704.08 of the Streets and Highways Code." The law provides for 

eight members, of which there are five currently serving. The members are appointed by various 

State authorities including the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, 

the Director of Finance, the State Treasurer and the State Controller. The law requires that the 

Group members possess various types of experience including finance, planning and 

construction of high-speed rail, environmental issues and operation of intercity or commuter 

passenger train service. The Group began its work in 2009. 

The members of the group have very wide expcrience in transportation planning, project 

planning and management. and operation of rail passenger services at various levels, including 

high-speed rail. The Group's members have not attempted to analyze all the details of the 

Authority'S designs or plans. Instead, we have tocused on broader policy, financial and 

economic issues where our expertise may have most value. 

The Group reports directly to the Legislature. Members of the Group arc not State employees. 

The Group has no staff or budget and members receive no compensation other than expenses lor 

travel, tood and lodging. We have attempted to meet monthly by phone and quarterly in person 

and we have met trom time to time with Members of the Legislature, legislative staff, the 

Legislative Analyst's (LAO) stafl' and the GAO. We have also held a number of meetings with 

the Authority and with Authority staff and have developed an effective working relationship. 

The Group has issued a number of reports or letters, all of which have been posted to the 

Group's website at www.cahsrprg.com. The website also includes all responses to questions we 

have posed to the Authority. 
238 


Insert offset folio 205 here 81259.205

2 

The Group has consistently maintained that we support the concept of high-speed rail in 

California, although we have had, and continue to have, a number of concerns about the project. 

Our objective in expressing these concerns, which we believe is in accord with the purposes of 

the Act, is first to strengthen the project and second to ensure that the Legislature and the public 

fully understand and accept the risks as well as the benefits of the project. Our experience has 

been that the better a project is understood at the beginning, the better it will be able to weather 

the inevitable problems that occur along the course of planning, construction and operation. 

Over the course of our work, we have raised a number of questions that I will discuss below, 

along with the status as of today in their resolution. 

Source of Complete Project Funding 

As of today, the project can count on around $3 billion in Federal American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of2009 (ARRA) grant funding and $9 billion in State bonds. Although 

President Obama has announced a program for future Federal funding for high-speed rail of up 

to $50 billion, Congress has yet to approve such a program and prospects for passage in the near 

term are not clear. Even if California received this entire amount, the total cost of the project 

could not be covered. As a consequence, funding for the project beyond the Central Valley 

segment and the work between San Jose and San Francisco and in the Los Angeles area is not 

available from any existing source. 

Governor Brown has argued that any shortfall in Federal funding can be covered from the State's 

carbon trading program, which would in total generate enough funding to pay for at least a major 

part of the project if allocated for this purpose. The 2000 Business Plan for the Authority 

suggested an 0.25% sales tax to pay for the entire project. By rough calculation, a fuel tax of 

around 25 cents/gallon would also raise adequate funding. 

We do not advocate or oppose any of these measures. The point is that, when the Central Valley 

segment is complete and the Authority turns to construction from Bakersfield to the Palmdale, 

one or more of these sources (or others) will need to be developed. 

Risk of an Incomplete Project 

If, for whatever reason, the project stalls after the completion ofthe Central Valley segment, the 

State would be left with an investment oflimited value. The line would not be electrified and 

would not permit testing of high-speed trains. It would permit a reduction in the schedule time 

ofthe Amtrak San Joaquin trains from Sacramento to Bakersfield but this would benetit 

approximately one million passengers per year. 

The Group recommended that the Authority shin: some of the initial money from the Central 

Valley to the two end segments (the "bookends") because the immediate benefits would accrue 

to 25 million passenger annually and would constitute a continuing benefit even if the project 

stalled at the end of the Central Valley segment. The Authority's response in its Revised 2012 
239 


Insert offset folio 206 here 81259.206

3 

Business Plan was to include an additional $1 billion to use on the "bookends," an approach that 

we believe significantly strengthened the overall value of the project by generating greater 

benefits more quickly and by reducing the risk of completing only a stranded segment. 

Planning Context 

The early development ofthe California high-speed rail project put the cart before the horse. 

Instead of having high-speed rail emerge from a state-wide transportation context considcring 

intercity competition and urban connections, the high-speed rail proposals werc essentially frcestanding with little recognition of the need for access to stations or connectivity to conventional 

and commuter rail. As a result, the demand forecast models assumed access times and costs that 

were not embedded in the actual plans of the State or local communities to improve access. 

The State recently updated its State Rail Plan to better integrate high-speed rail into the State's 

highway, air, conventional rail and various urban rail and bus system. This is a step in the right 

direction but more may need to be done, especially in integrating high-speed rail station access 

and development into the urban areas around the stations. 

Phasing and Blending 

In its initial Business Plans, the Authority did not clearly define the sequence of phases to be 

undertaken, leaving open the question of whether the first step beyond the Central Valley would 

be to the south or to the north. In the Revised 2012 Business Plan, the Authority plans to 

complete the link to the south first, a decision that will also have the benefit offilling the major 

remaining gap in rail passenger service from Sacramento and San Francisco to Los Angeles. 

In addition, the Authority had continued to plan for a four-track, separated alignment from San 

Jose to San Francisco and from Los Angeles to Anaheim, an approach that had generated 

adamant local opposition as well as increasing the project's cost. In response to an inquiry from 

then State Senator Joe Simitian, State Assemblyman Rich Gordon and U.S. Representative Anna 

Eshoo, the Group argued that a "blended" approach in which high-speed trains and Caltrain 

service would operate on the same tracks with only minimal expansion of the existing right-of: 

way would be a better initial step in establishing service to San Francisco. The Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority in Los Angeles and the Orange County Transportation Authority 

proposed a similar shared use approach. The Authority adopted the blended and shared use 

approaches in its Revised 2012 Business Plan. 

Business Model 

In its existing Business Plans, the Authority has not defined the business model it cxpects to 

follow in managing the service once the project is completed. That is, the Authority has yet to 

decide whether to advertise for a private operator under a management contract or to advertise 

for one or another form of private, for-profit franchise or concession. The terms under which the 
240 


Insert offset folio 207 here 81259.207

4 

high-speed service will operate in conjunction with commuter operators on the blended service 

links have also not been defined. The Authority has stated that further development of this issue 

will be a priority in its 2014 Business Plan and the Group encourages this emphasis. 

Management Resources 

The Group has been concerned that effective project control will be beyond the Authority's 

capability, both in sheer scale of the required human resources and in availability orthe 

specialized skills needed for high-speed rail. The Authority's approach to meeting this challenge 

relies heavily on Design-Build (DB) contracting that minimizes the numbers of staff on the 

Authority's payroll and places responsibility on the contractor who is supposed to complete the 

preliminary designs furnished by the Authority as weI! as manage construction. In addition, the 

Authority plans to make greater use of reimbursable staff assignments from other State agencies, 

principally Caltrans. which already have experience in many of the areas needing supervision. 

Progress in expanding the Authority's in-house stafT is encouraging and clearly reflects the 

Governor's priority in getting the project under control. This priority will need to continue as the 

project ramps up its construction efTort, We have advocated expanded use of inter-agency 

staffing and believe this will also playa positive role in bringing the varying levels and types of 

skills the project will need as the level and types of work change over the project's life. 

The reliance on DB contracting will pose risks as well as advantages. The DB approach 

minimizes the Authority's direct staffing needs and gives the DB contractor the maximum 

flexibility to turn the Authority's preliminary plans into a cost-effective finished product. By the 

same token, the quality of the plans furnished by the Authority will be of paramount importance, 

as will the ability of the Authority to work with the contractor, to supervise the contractor's 

cftarts and to coordinate the contractor's work with that of subsequent contractors connecting to, 

or building on, the contractor's work. Since the engineering and construction effort for highspeed rail posc a number of specialized problems, the qualifications and capability of the 

contractor to do the DB work will also be important. The Authority's experience in managing 

the DB contracts in the Central Valley in the next several years will deserve close scrutiny. 

Demand Forecasting 

The Authority's demand forecasting has been conducted and reviewed by recognized 

professionals and is in accordance with modern practice within the limits of the resources so far 

allocated to the eftort. With this acknowledged, a number of outside observers and the Group 

have argued that demand forecasting fl)r creation of an entirely new service (Hgreenfield"), where 

no existing service pattern exists. is subject to a larger degree of variation than would be the case 

where an existing service was being improved (Hbrownfield"). Most of the world's high-spced 

rail services were built to improve or replace existing services and much of the demand 

forecasting experience comes lrom these situations. In addition, the market surveys used in the 

demand forecasting are less extensive than would be desired to support a project of this 
241 


Insert offset folio 208 here 81259.208

5 

magnitude and they necessarily focus on what people say they would do if offered a new choice 

that they may ncver have experienced ("stated preference") rather than measuring what they 

have actually done in making market-based modal choices ("revealed preference"). 

In response to comments from a number of sources including the Group, the Authority has 

revised its demand forecasts downward and has incorporated several sensitivity analyses in 

recent Business Plans. The Authority's demand forecasting peer review panel has conducted an 

exhaustive assessment of the demand forecasting approach and has submitted a series of 

recommendations for improvement both in the structure of the modeling and, over a longer term, 

in the data collected for use in calibrating the models. We understand that this will be partly 

reflected in the 2014 Business Plan and that better input data will be available for later plans. 

Since there are actually no decisions to be made in the short term that will depend on the results 

of the demand forecasts, this staged approach appears appropriate; but, the Group believes that 

the demand modeling should be tully upgraded betore a decision is made to extend the network 

south beyond Bakersfield. We have discussed with the Authority the value of adopting a 

probability-based approach in presenting future demand forecasts (as well as capital and 

operations and maintenance cost forecasts) based on Monte Carlo simulation techniques and 

encourage them to incorporate this approach in tilture planning and analysis. 

Capital Costs 

Based on discussions with the Authority, we believe that the construction cost forecasts for the 

work in the Central Valley have been done in accordance with modem professional standards 

and are not obviously biased either up or down. At the same time, it should be emphasized that 

essentially all existing estimates in the project are still based on preliminary designs without 

actual construction or managerial experience. While the recent bidding in the first Central 

Valley project ofters some encouragement, the dispersion in the bid amounts and technical 

scores may not yet add much to increased confidence in future capital cost estimates. With the 

tinal alignment and a number of design decisions for the first package still in flux, costs fix even 

the first package may sti II evolve. 

The history of the project has seen cost estimates rising well above the rate of inflation. It is 

difficult to draw firm conclusions from this because the project scope has not been fixed, but it is 

not unusual for project cost estimates on mega-projects to grow in line with the movement of the 

project from initial vision to actual realization. The Group has argued that the traditional 

approach of offering a low, medium and high cost estimate may not accurately portray the likely 

cost uncertainly of this project. This is especially true since the project is at a stage where so 

little actual experience is available. As with demand forecasting, probability-based estimating 

techniques may be a better approach. 

Operating and Maintenance Cost (O&M) Models 
242 


Insert offset folio 209 here 81259.209

6 

The Group opined that the O&M model applied in the Revised 2012 Business Plan was probably 

simplistic. may not have been fully linked to the Authority's other planning tools such as the 

operating simulations, and was not fully based on experience either in Europe or the U.S. The 

Group considered this to be important because all of the Authority's financial analyses are based 

on both demand and cost forecasts and because the ability of the Authority to operate without 

State subsidy, as required by law, depends on the difference between revenues and costs. 

The Authority commissioned a peer review study by European experts to assess the O&M 

model. The panel recently concluded that there were no fatal f1aws in the model, but issued 19 

findings identifying ways in which the model can be upgraded. 

The panel's findings appear reasonable and the Group will encourage the Authority to adopt 

them in upgrading the model. One aspect of the recommendations - translating European costs 

and maintenance practices into U.S. conditions and future California outcomes - is especially 

important. The Group will encourage the Authority to employ experts with specific experience 

with U.S. practice to ensure that the model will be suitable for conditions expected in California. 

In summary, I would like to emphasize two basic points. 

First, even within the realm of mega-projects, building and operating high-speed rail in 

California is going to be an immense, enormously complex undertaking. High-speed rail 

projects in Europe, Japan, China, Korea, and even the Northeast Corridor in the U.S., have been 

managed by very experienced and adequately (except for the Northeast Corridor) financed 

operating enterprises. The Authority faces a very steep learning curve before it is on a par with 

these organizations and some of the learning is likely to be costly. They have a bear, albeit a 

Golden Bear, by the tail. 

Second, the Authority has made manifest progress in the planning and management of the 

project since Governor Brown decided to give it high priority and his direct support. In a 

number of ways described in this statement, the Revised 2012 Business Plan presents a much 

improved view of how to initiate the project and how to better integrate it into California's 

overall transportation system. The Authority has also listed a number of credible ways in which 

future Business Plans will give a more realistic picture of the project's costs and benefits and has 

made decisions that will reduce the financial risks to the State. 

The Independent Peer Review Group has worked diligently to assist the Legislature in 

understanding the project's risks and challenges as well as its benetits. This has often incorrectly 

cast us as project opponents. However, only the Legislature and the U.S. Congress are 

empowered to make the policy decisions regarding tradeoffs in benefits, costs and risks 

associated with the California high-speed rail project, as well as other high-speed rail projects in 

the United States. Our job is to work to ensure that the information you use in making those 

policy decisions is as complete, objective and unbiased as possible. 
243 


Insert offset folio 210 here 81259.210

illnmmitt££ nn Wrnnspnrtnttnn nUll Jlnfrastrudur£ 

N.§. llinuJl£ nf iR£pr£Jl£lltattu£s 

l!!lill §I)ufit,r 

Qtl)crirmcrn 

Chd8wphel' P. Hertl'oUT!, St.'\IT D\l'~et(Jr 

Louis S. Thompson 

Chairman 

i!lu!lIrington, j[)QJ: 2U515 

July 9, 2013 

Ni[k .it illaljnll, ]] 

ll\nnking j$l,mbfr 

Peer Review Group for the California High-Speed Rail project 

14684 Stoneridge Drive 

Saratoga, CA 95070 

Dear Mr. Thompson: 

Thank you for your testimony before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials on May 28, 2013 conceming "Oversight of California High Speed Rail." 

am pleased you appeared and testified on behalf of the Pecr Review Group for the Califomia 

High Speed Rail Project. The Subcommittee gained valuable insight from the information yon 

provided at the hearing. 

Enclosed please find additional questions for written responses for the record. The 

Subcommittee appreciates your written responses no later than July 26,2013. Please provide an 

electronic version of your response via email to .. !!!!!!I!!!!!! ••••• M .. 

If you have any questions please contact _ ... C of the Subcommittee at 

T 

Enclosures 

rman 

ommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

dous Materials 
244 


Insert offset folio 211 here 81259.211

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on "Oversight of California High Speed Rail" 

May 28, 2013 

Questions for the Record 

Questions from Rep. Corrine Brown: 

Mr. Thompson, Representative Costa accurately stated at the hearing that infrastructure projects 

frequently do not have a guaranteed source of funding. You also testified that when you oversaw 

the construction of the Northeast Corridor project that you had to depend on Congress reappropriating funds every year. However, it is understood that having a steady source of funding 

could provide several benefits and could potentially lower the overall cost of the High-Speed 

Rail project. 

• From your experience in construction, how does not having a reliable source of funding 

impact the time line and overall cost of a project? 

• In your opinion, how would a dedicated source offimdingfor passenger rail help 

California's High-Speed Rail project? 

• Do you think having a steady source of funding would incentivize the private sector to 

invest in High-Speed Rail? 

Mr. Thompson, at the hearing, Mr. Al Smith in his testimony indicated that you may have the 

best numbers as to how many jobs will be created by California's High-Speed Rail project. 

For the record, please supply the number of jobs that will directly and indirectly be 

created by the High-Speed Rail project. 

Mr. Thompson, at the hearing there was a significant amount of discussion as to whether the 

current plan for tlle High-Speed Rail project aligns with what California voters approved with 

Proposition IA. Representative Costa explained at the hearing, how, in his opinion as the 

original drafter of Proposition I A that the current plans do follow the intent and are not violating 

what was approved by Califomia voters. 

For the record, please explain how the current plan for California'S High-::'peed Rail 

project aligns or deviates from what California voters approved with Proposition 1 A. 

2 
245 


Insert offset folio 212 here 81259.212

Louis S. Thompson 

Responses to Questions Submitted for the Record by the Honorable Corinne Brown 

Submitted .July 10,2013 

Question: From your experience in construction, how does not having a reliable source of 

funding impact the timclinc and overall cost of a project~ 

Answer: Large "mega-projects" take place over many years. Each part of a project schcdule is 

based on the result of prior work. When funding is unpredictable, scheduling and project 

management are much more difficult. If funding is not available as planned, schedules havc to 

be changed, scope may need to be changed, and costs go up. 

I should add in response to the prefatory statcment that, although the Northeast Corridor 

Improvement Project (NECIP) did depend on annual appropriations, the NECIP at least had full 

authorization, which meant that it was the intent of Congress and the President that the project be 

done in its entirety more or less as discussed in authorization hearings. This furnishcd a tlrm 

basis for planning and budgeting and ensured that year-to-year changes. if any, were minor and 

relatively easy to manage. It also ensurcd that I did not have to deal with "boom and bust" 

staffing and management issues. 

Question: In your opinion, how would a dedicated source of funding for passenger rail help 

California's High-Speed Rail project? 

Answer: Thc CA HSR project will take at least 20 years and $60 billion to complete. In my 

judgment, having a known and stable source of funding (as was the case for the Interstate 

Highway Systcm) would greatly help to: plan the projcct; make sure that all the sections are 

completed on time and in sequence; support investment on the part of contractors and potential 

operators by giving them more confidence that the project will be completed; and. permit a stable 

staffing level that would attract the best people. All of these would reduee the cost, speed up the 

schedule and increase the benetits of the project. 

Question: Do you think having a steady source of funding would incentivize the private sector to 

invest in High-Speed Rail" 

Answer: Absolutely yes. Put another way, if funding of the project is sporadic and completion 

of the project is continually in question, the private sector would have a lot less reason to invest 

in construction equipment and technology or in planning for operations. 

Question: For the record, please supply the number of jobs that will directly and indirectly be 

created by the High-Speed Rail project. 

Answer: I have not made an independent estimate of employment creation. and estimating 

employment in construction projects is at best an inexact science. With this said, the Mineta 

Transportation Institute at San Jose State Univcrsity has estimated that the entire project might 

generate 256,000 job-years of direct employment, while the High-Speed Rail Authority has 

estimated that the project might generate 800,000 to 900,000 job-ycars of total employment. 
246 


Insert offset folio 213 here 81259.213

These are both roughly consistent with broad guidance from the Council of Economic Advisers 

that each $92,000 of projcct spending creates about one job-year of employment. 

Several points need emphasis in this discussion. First, the metric is job-years, not jobs. That is, 

a project lasting 5 years and costing $460,000 would create 5 job-years. but, on average, only 

one job. Second. it is important to distinguish between direct job creation (people actually 

working on the project) and total job creation, which would include not only direct jobs, but also 

secondary (supply) jobs as well as tertiary jobs created by thc spending of the direct and supply 

employees. Estimation of direct jobs is approximate, and estimation of secondary and tertiary 

jobs is even more approximate. Finally, any spending creates employment: the same impact 

would be fclt trom a canal project, or a highway project or essentially any investment so there is 

nothing uniquely attributable to high-speed rail in the employment generation. 

Question: For the record, please explain how the current plan for California's High-Speed 

project aligns or deviates from what California voters approved with Proposition lAo 

Answer: This calls for a legal conclusion that I am not competent to render. As an example of 

this issue, the Proposition provides that "ftJhe planned passenger service by the authority in the 

corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy" 

but does not provide a clear definition of "operating subsidy" either as to the items to be included 

in the calculation or as to the need to operate without "subsidy" in each and every year or only 

over a period of years up to the life of the project. I would personally interpret the language to 

mean that operating revenues must cover cash operating costs (operating and maintenance) and 

that this should be true over a reasonable period of time after start-up, but others might argue that 

financial costs such as interest, depreciation and an allowance for debt repayment or capital 

recovery should be included. Most economists would argue that "operating subsidy," however 

calculated, is not an appropriate measure of the benefits and costs of the project. 

From the viewpoint of a transportation professional (and not a lawyer) with an engineering, 

economics and finance background, I have read the law a number of times. While it is beyond 

me to say that the project fully complies (or does not comply) with all provisions of the law, I 

can say that I am unable to identify any specific point in which the project, as currently planned, 

contravenes a realistic understanding of the intent and objectives ofthe law. 
247 


Insert offset folio 214 here 81259.214

To: 

From: 

Date: 

Subject 

U. S. House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous 

Materials 

The Honorable leffDenham, Chair 

Al Smith, President and CEO 

Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce 

May 28, 20]3 

Oversight of California High-Speed Rail 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding the high-speed rail project 

currently in place for the State of California. 

As the President and the CEO of the Fresno Area Chamber ofComrnerce, I work closely 

with our region's businesses, and I have a unique understanding of the Central Valley's 

economy. In this role, I am tasked with promoting business and enhancing the economic 

and cultural well-being of Fresno County residents. That is why the Fresno Area 

Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the development of California's high-speed rail 

project. 

I know that California's high-speed rail system will create thousands of jobs, both now 

and in the future. r also know that this modern transportation system will make doing 

business in the Valley more attractive and efficient. And, I know that California's 

geography and expected population growth make our state perfectly suited for this major 

infrastructure project. 

Central California's dependence on one industry 

Central California is considered the bread basket ofthe world. Its fertile soils generates a 

large variety of agricultural products the generate billions of dollars of economic stimulus 

and thousands of jobs. Fresno, Madera and Tulare Counties alone generate over 14 

billion dollars of the 32 billion of agriculture income state-wide. 

This area is almost totally dependent on this business segment. Unfortunately, this 

segment can also be negatively impacted with drought conditions and environmental 

challenges, as we are witnessing even as we speak. The guarantee of a sustainable output 

year in and year out is fragile. 
248 


Insert offset folio 215 here 81259.215

As a result, there is an urgent need to diversify the economic base ofthis portion of 

California. 

Higher unemployment 

In the central valley, unemployment ranges in excess ofthe 15% range (some west side 

cities have unemployment in excess of 40%). This is six points higher than the 9% statewide average (one of the highest in the nation) and twice as large as the 7.5% 

unemployment nationwide. Job creation is of paramount impoliance to the citizens of this 

area. 

This is why high speed rail is a welcome opportunity to positively impact all of these 

factors. 

Employment that diversifies our economy 

The development of high speed rail has the opportunity to create 20,000 jobs for every 

billion of dollars invested. 

The High Speed Rail Authority is estimating 135,000 construction jobs in the Central 

Valley - 8,000 in Fresno County alone over the approximate 8 years of development. 

Statewide the estimate is 600,000 construction related jobs - a major contribution to 

reducing our statewide unemployment. 

Should the maintenance facility be located in Fresno, it could create 1,500 high-paying 

permanent jobs in the Central Valley, thus helping to diversify with good paying, higher 

skilled jobs. 

Additionally, the effort could bring along ancillary businesses and industry in support 

services. In fact, it is possible that this part of California couId become the center-point of 

future high-speed rail projects as it expands nationwide. 

Such diversification improves the stability of an economy that is currently based on the 

fic.kleness of rainfall and environmental challenges. 

The other economic impact is the boost to small business with 25% of the funds targeted 

at small businesses and disabled veterans. 

Support from Valley businesses 

Businesses large and small in the San Joaquin Valley support the California high-speed 

rail project because they know this modem transportation system will create jobs in the 

Valley and ac.ross the state now and in the future. 

Jack Emerian is a lifelong resident of Fresno and a business owner since 1967. He is the 

Chief Executive Officer at Val Print, a marketing and design company based in Fresno. 
249 


Insert offset folio 216 here 81259.216

Three of the company's properties will be affected by the rail alignment, and throughout 

this process, he has found in the High-Speed Rail Authority a willing and supportive 

partner. 

Despite the need to relocate some of his business, he is a passionate supporter ofthe 

project because he knows that his short-term sacrifice will serve the greater good and 

ensure a brighter future for the private sector in the Valley. 

A high-speed rail system that connects the Valley to the rest ofthe state will alleviate 

congestion on Highway 99, reinvigorate the regional economy, and make doing business 

in the Valley more efficient and attractive for companies like Val Print. 

California has a unique geography 

This state runs north and south, not so much east and west From the southern border to 

its northern counterpart lies 770 miles. That's approximately the equivalent of the miles 

between Chicago, Illinois to Jackson, Mississippi. 

From California's mqjor population and economic centers, the distance from Los AngeJes 

to San Francisco is over 380 miles. The distance from San Diego to Sacramento is 504 

miles. 

A large population 

We have the largest population of any state in the nation - in excess of 37 million 

inhabitants. That population is split with 60 % (22 million) living in southern California 

and 40% (15 million) living in the northern portion. 

The large population and business aspects of southern California (Los Angeles, San 

Diego, etc.) has the necessity to interface regularly with its northern counterpart, 

primarily San Francisco (a financial center and a top tourist destination; Sacramentothe government Capital ofthe state and also three of the nations more frequented national 

parks, Yosemite, Kings Canyon and Sequoia. 

Our transportation choices today consist of automotive, air or Amtrak bus and rail. 

But the need exists that 37 million Californians require reasonable options for moving 

around this state for leisure, business and governmental plU1Joses. 

Moving a large population in California's unique geography 

California has three ofthe top five most congested urban areas in the United States. Right 

now, congestion costs approximately $20 billion per year in wasted fuel and lost time 
250 


Insert offset folio 217 here 81259.217

As an alternative to automotive travel, HSR has the ability to speed transportation time; 

put less stress on passengers; reduced fhel costs; less wear and tear on highways thus 

reducing the cost of highway maintenance, and resulting in less accidents and deaths 

Additionally, with air-service out of Fresno and high ticket costs, HSR to SFO Airport 

would take 1 hour nine minutes versus three hours by automobile, thus making air travel 

to other parts of the country less costly and more convenient. And an added bonus - no 

need to park a car. 

Adding to all of these is the reduction in C02 estimates of 130 to 190 pounds per trip, 

thus improving air quality in an area with air challenges. 

As an alternative to intrastate air travel, HSR diminishes the need for new airports and 

new runway construction. We cannot pour enough concrete to stay ahead of the demand. 

Conclusion 

As someone who has spent my life in the private sector, I can tell you that high-speed rail 

will be an economic game-changer for the Valley. Our businesses need increased demand 

and improved travel options in order to succeed, and that's exactly what California's 

high-speed rail system will bring to the Valley. 

Federal assistance in transportation will be needed whether it is highway construction; 

airport and/or runways expansion or high speed raiL Having this option for the enormous 

growth projected for California is not only convenient but a wise investment. 

With 37 million Californians needing to move throughout the state based on the listed 

examples, one must believe high speed rail would be an atiractive and successful option. 

Respectfully submitted: 

Al Smith 

President and CEO 
251 


Insert offset folio 218 here 81259.218

Al Smith 

President and CEO 

Fresno Chamber ofCammcrce 

2331 Fresno St 

Fresno, CA 93721 

Dear fl.1r. Smith: 

July 9, 201J 

Thank you far your testimony before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazilrdous Materials on "fay 2X, 2013 concerning "O,ersight ofCali[ornia High Speed Rail." 

am pleased you appeared and testified on behalf' of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce. The 

Subcommittee gained valuable insight from thc information you provided at the hearing. 

enclosed please find additional questions it)r written responses tll!' the record. The 

Subcommittee appreciaks your written responses no later than July 26, 201 J. Please provide an 

electronic version of your response via email to L £ __ . 

If you have any 

" T. 

Enclosures 

please contaclivlikc friedberg of tbe Subcommittee at 

rnan 

1111Tlittce on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

dous Materials 
252 


Insert offset folio 219 here 81259.219

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on "Oversight of California High Speed Rail" 

May 28, 2013 

Questions for the Record 

Questions from Rep. Corrine Brown: 

Mr. Smith, in your testimony at the hearing you indicated that the High-Speed Rail project will 

have an enonnous impact in the Central Valley. You also stated that High-Speed Rail would 

make doing business in the Central Valley both more attractive and efficient. 

• For the record, please summarize the current unemployment rates for the Central Valley. 

• Please explain how High-Speed Rail will impact the Central Valley economy, and why it 

is so important at this time to bring high payingjobs to the Valley. 

Please explain how the High-Speed Rail project will both directly and indirectly benefit 

the Central Valley business community. 

2 
253 


Insert offset folio 220 here 81259.220

To: 

From: 

Date: 

Subject 

U. S. House _. Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous 

Materials 

The Honorahle Jeff Denham, Chair 

Al Smith, President and CEO 

Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce 

July 18,2013 

Oversight of California High-Speed Rail 

Thank you for your letter of July 9th, 2013 regarding your request for additional input 

following my appearance before yom sub-committee on May 28, 2013. To the additional 

questions submitted by Rep. Corrine Brown [ respectfully submit my responses as 

follows: 

Question #1: For the record, please summarize the curren/unemployment rates/or the 

Central Valley. 

According to the statistics published by the California Employment Development 

Department there has been another uptick in unemployment. This geographic area of 

California continues to exceed the rest of the State (8.5%,) and the Nation (7.5%) by 

shocking lllimbers. 

The four counties that comprise this section of the state arc Fresno, Madera, Merced. 

Kings and Tulare. Unemployment in these counties as of June 2013 was as follows: 

Fresno 12.3% 

Madera 11.0% 

Merced 14.1% 

Iolare 12.8% 

Kings 12.8%. 

With 113,100 of our neighbors standing in an unemployment line out of work and with 

no immediate sign of dramatic change in this area. we, as a Chamber of Commerce, 

continue to search for ways to diversify our economy. Our citizens have wailed too long 

in that line and yearn i()r the opportunity to rdum to making a positive contribution to 

their families and our society. 
254 


Insert offset folio 221 here 81259.221

Question #2: Please explain how High-Speed Rail will impact the Central Valley 

ecollomy, and wily it is so important at this time to bring high paying jobs to the Valley. 

This area of Cali fomi a is almost totally dependent on the agricultural business segment. 

Unfortlmately, this segment can also be negatively impacted ,"ith drought conditions and 

environmental challenges, as we are witnessing even as we spcak. The guarantee of a 

sustainable water output year in and year out is fragile. 

As a result, there is an urgent need to diversify the economic base ofthis portion of 

California. 

As mentioned in question #1, central valley unemployment ranges close to twice the 

national average. In some case, some west side cities in Fresno County have 

unemployment in excess of a shameful 40%. 

This is why high speed rail is a welcome opportunity to positively impact all of these 

factors. 

Question: #3: Please explain how the High-Speed Rail project will both directly and 

indirectly benefit the Central Valley business commullity. 

The development of high speed rail has the opportunity to create 20,000 jobs for every 

billion of dollars invested. 

The High Speed Rail Authority is estimating 135,000 constnlction jobs in the Central 

Valley - 8,000 in Fresno County alone over the approximate 8 years of development. 

Statewide the estimate is 600,000 construction related jobs a major contribution to 

reducing our statewide unemployment. 

Should the maintenance facility be located in Fresno, it eould create 1,500 high-paying 

pennanentjobs in the Central Valley, thus helping to diversify with good paying, higher 

skilled jobs, 

Additionally, the effort could bring along ancillary businesses and industry in support 

services, In fact, it is possible that this part of California could become (he center-point of 

future high-speed rail projects as it expandl· nationwide. 

Such diversification improves the stability of an economy that is currently based on the 

fickleness of rainfall and environmental challenges. 

The other economic impact is the boost to small business with 25% of the funds targeted 

at smail businesses and disabled veterans. 

As the President and the CEO of the Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce, I work closely 

with our region's businesses, and I have a unique understanding of the Central Valley's 
255 


Insert offset folio 222 here 81259.222

economy. In this role, I am tasked with promoting business and enhancing the economic 

and cultural well-being of Fresno County residents. That is why the Fresno Area 

Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the development of California's high-speed rail 

projecL 

I know that Califomia's high-speed rail system will create thousands of jobs, both now 

and in the future. I also know that this modem transpo.rtation system will make doing 

business in the Valley more attractive and efficient. And, 1 know that California's 

geography and expected population growth make our state perfectly suited for this m,~ior 

infrastructure project. 

As someone who has spent my life in the private sector, I can tell you that high-speed rail 

will be an economic game-changer for the Valley. Our businesses will need accelerated 

demand and improved travel options in order to succeed, and that's exactly what 

California's high-speed rail system wiH bring to the Valley. 

Federal assistance in transportation will be needed whether it is highway construction; 

airport and/or runways expansion or high speed rail. Having this option fur the enormous 

growth projected for California is not only convenient but a wise investment. 

With 37 million Californians needing to move throughout the state based on the listed 

examples, one must believe high speed rail would be an attractive and successful option. 

President and CEO 
256 


Insert offset folio 223 here 81259.223

Letters of Support 

.. Edwin M. Lee, Major of Sacramento, Chuck Reed, Mayor of San Jose, Kevin Johnson, 

Mayor of Sacramento, Ashley Swearengin, Mayor of Fresno, Antonio Villaraigosa, 

Mayor of Los Angeles (old letter but important to our case) 

.. James C. Ledford, Jr., Mayor - City of Palmdale 

.. Robbie Hunter, President - State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 

• Thomas T. Holsman, CEO - The Assoeiated General Contractors of America of 

California 

.. Jim Earp, Executive Director - California Alliance for Jobs 

.. Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments 

.. Gary Toebben, President & CEO - Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce 

Jim Wundennan, President and CEO - Bay Area Council 

.. Jessica Zenk, Senior Director of Transportation Policy - Silicon Valley Leadership Group 

.. David Adelman, Chair/Stuart Waldman, President - Valley Industry & Commerce 

Association 

.. George L. Chilson, Chainnan - Californians for High Speed Rail 

.. Michael Scanlon, Executive Director - CalTrain 

.. Dr. Lee Boese, Jr., Chairman - Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee, Inc. 

• Michael Lornio, Founding Member - I Will Ride 

.. Helen Chavez-Hansen, President-Owner - La Tapatia Tortilleria, Inc. 

• Andreas Cluver, Secretary Treasurer - Building and Construction and Trades Council of 

Alameda County, AFI-CIO 

.. Ron Miller, Executive Secretary - Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and 

Construction Trades Council 

.. Tom Lemmon, Business Manager - San Diego County Building & Construction Trades 

Council, AFL-CIO 

• Tony Ledoux, PresidentIBilly Powell, Financial Secretary-Treasurer - Building and 

Trades Council of Stanislaus, Merced, Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties 

.. John Spaulding, Executive Secretary - Building Trades Council- Kern, Inyo & Mono 

Counties of California AFL-CIO 

.. Sid Berg - Financial SecretarylTreasurer - Building and Construction Trades Council of 

Humboldt and Del Norte Counties 

.. Neil Struthers, CEO - Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction 

Trades Council 

.. Sterling E.Mayes, Secretary/Treasurer - Construction Trades Council 

.. Gerald E. Pfeiffer, Business Manager/Financial Secretary - International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers Local Union No. 332 

.. A.C. Steelman, Business Manager International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersLocal Union No. 340 

.. Mark D. Simonin, Business Manager - International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersLocal Union No. 639 

.. Bobby Stutzman, President Elect - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

Local Union No. 684 

1 
257 


Insert offset folio 224 here 81259.224

• Andy Hartmann, Business Manager - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -

Local Union No. 234 

• Robert 1. Lamb II, United Association International Representative, California and 

Hawai'I - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Local Union No. 684 

• Shane Werner, Business Manager/Financial Secretary - International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers, Local No. 952 

• Dave Jackson, President, RA.e. Local No.3. California Bricklayers and Allied 

Craftworks 

• Michael Height, Apprenticeship Coordinator - Bricklayers and Allied Crafts Local No.3 

Joint Apprentice Training & Educational Committee 

• Cliff Smith, Business Manager - United Union of Roofers Waterproofers and Allied 

Workers 

• Chris Greaney, Business Representative - Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers 

Local Union No. 16 

• Bob Jennings, Business Manager U.S. Local 246 United Association of Journeymen and 

Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada 

• John D. Bodine, Business Manager/Dale H. O'Dell, Business Agent - Road Sprinkler 

Fitters Local Union No. 669 

• Jason Gallia, Business Agent - Iron Workers Local 378, Union of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing 

• Bruce Word, President/Business Manager - International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, 

Rail and Transportation Workers 

• James P. Barcelos - State of California Certified Journeyman Electrician 

• Peter Halver - Modesto & Stockton Brach Manager·- Northern California Chapter, 

National Electrical Contractors Association 

• Don M. Savory - Business Manager, F.S.T. - The International Association of Bridge, 

Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

• Ernie Wiens, Vice President - The International Association of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

• Jason Henson, President - The International Association of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

Luis Gonzalez, Business Agent - The International Association of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

• Richard Whitney, PresidentiSecretary-Treasurer - Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers 

Local No.4 

• John A. Brown, Business ManagerlFinancial Secretary - International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers - Local Union No. 477 

• Phillip Winters, Executive Director - Northern California Teamsters Apprentice Training 

and Education Trust Fund 

• Douglas M. Chappell, Business Manager - International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers Local Union No. 441 

• Michael Silvey, Business Manager - Ironworkers Local 433 

• Kirk Crosswhite, Business Manager/Financial Secretary-Treasurer - Plumbers & 

Steamfitters Local Union #230 

2 
258 


Insert offset folio 225 here 81259.225

• Johnny Simpson, Business Manager - International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersLocal Union No. 569 

• Chuck Huddleston, Business Manager - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

- Local Union No. 413 

• Brian C. Gini, VP/Modesto Branch Manager - Collins Electrical Company, Inc. 

• Barry Frain, President - Con J. Franke Electrical Inc. 

• James J. Conway - Construction Industry Consulting 

3 
259 


Insert offset folio 226 here 81259.226

Keep California 

MovingForard 

SupegrtHigh .. Speed Rail 

Asmllyor5, we have to ba'an.:~ budgets .md make tough detlsions;. We understand the difficult task the 

Governor and legIslature face in negotiating a budget in the 'coming days, '!Je also know that people In'' 

OUt cities need jobs. We know that we, as a state and country, need to Invest In our infrastructure, both 

forthe ne-ar~term ecoMf.\mk benefits and the.fony-term competitiveness and quality t'tt life that these 

l.nve-slment,s produce, !:?a~ ~~:~i!y,.w,~~~.~¢it,s~!~~~t~!:,~.7~.is!~tu.~e.t~ foUQ\'" the (iovernor's lead and fund 

~~ ~~:~:~y~~?t'5~}!r~~r~n;:~!!~ve~t,~.~~~.I.~'~?lJr~~~ort<ly~~ .s~ste:ns by approptiatio.9. ~toposit!on 

',.':--' "::,,;. ',J:~ . .,., :>; \ ':":'~~L':.~ '; ;~.:: ~", ~':'{.'~~ . ; 

- "0 ~~?<~%f~~:~~~,!9~~ ~~~p~~~dl6'~~i~f!~~~~i:~f<a:'~i9h~5P,ee~ Aul's~$te~ In C~lIforrua as an important 

tl~:!~~)o~~5~:';;' )<f~1 ,~~,.n.9h·t:'9tiijjo(k 'on'otlr rOa:~'.<in.,g·~;:~~(?~~~.!h(t.fe?eral, 9over~mf:nt 5upport~ the CalIfornia 

'j'; systeJTI.,providing $33 biUion l~.IIJ~.tial',fUI'!,~~~'g ~91_!;!t !he ~ristfUctio~ und.~r~d~,'lf~he Legi£latore 

doesn't appropril)te $2,7 bitlion i~ ~~~W~~~!.~ !~~~~~:t~a~ fed~fat in¥~$tmen~ will be.'lost. 

PrQP 1 A bonds. won't just st.art the ;:;on~v~r:i'~H'~(!~e::;:;~_~try'~ !l~.st high-speed ~il SY5tem;Th~Y wiJI 

'". ,al.~~.Pt?'~f!!,<?mmuters statewide with b~t~~~ tr~~~~;'t,~tl~n.~ystems. in th~ titjes ~I')~ it~a.n ~re.as, , " . , last year'~~,t~_.~~~ ~egF~~,~i ttansp0r:tati-of'!"ag~n~!.~s ~a~e ;:O,l,llewill produce, ?e"~e_fit'S ~t}!e~.:~nd i~ ~'-!.re plaa:s,.iri)!~ln9 i.~ s~$~ems 

trips a year:T~is::i~,~yS!:~ti~f'{oters app(()~ed 1n.'t:?P ~fI,''pr('~~i,ding 

and for local proj~~.t~:"St,a~ f,,!fJd~ will be "Ieyer~~ed, ?'~~ ,{;.~h~t< 

generate $12 bi!lion_~ft~~!,~po~ta~o~ 'Imp"rovern~~~s ~l ov.~r'tile 

onstruction jobs In the 'pro(es~. 

M~~riif~~~i~i~tir~ki~-~" high-speed rail is not IHI easy d~dsion, but not all tough ~eclsiG~$ are 

ne9&!ive OO(!s. They can alw becour3geousand forward-looking ones. By appropri~ting lA funds for a 

comprehensive statewide rail program. the Legislature can put people back to work a.nd keep california 

!)laying forward_ 

"'i: .. f.::;:~\..' . ',i Mayo{ of San Francisco 

("u("Ree.~ . MayorQfSanJose 

Kevin Johnson 

Mayor of Sacramento 

. Ashley Swearengin 

Mayor of Fresno 

Antonio Villar.igo,. Mayor of Lo, Angeles 
260 


Insert offset folio 227 here 81259.227

lAMES C. LEl)FOI\!), IR, 

Mdycr 

TOM LACKEY 

,\J,/\'(lr/'f\"/i>m 

LAUI1.A HE fTENCOURT 

(:oullt"ilmf'lIIb .. , 

MIKf DISPENZA 

(.'oulldfml'm/l;'r 

STEVfN D, HOF"AUER 

((rImrilmr>mb.!r 

3$JOO Sj~rra Ilighw.lY 

'Ie!: b61/167-5!OO 

PALMDALE a place to call home 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

May 23, 2013 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U,S, House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D,C. 20515 

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL- PALMDALE, CA 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

The City of Palmdale is working hard to create economic development 

opportunities, improve the availability of jobs for our residents, and to 

promote multi-modal connectivity with the surrounding regions, To that 

end, Palmdale is resolute in its support for the Califomia High-Speed Rail 

project. 

The City of Palmdale and local cities have taken a strong stance over 

many years in support of high-speed rail. The reason is clear: By 

supporting the high-speed train project, we are delivering a vision that 

stands to provide greater mobility for Antelope Valley residents, increased 

economic development, and a cleaner, more reliable way to move 

throughout the state, 

We are also looking to create a significant influx of jobs. Construction of 

the blended system from the Bay Area to Southern California is expected 

to create an average of 66,000 jobs annually for 15 years, According to 

WIV'" ciryo(r£llmildle,org 
261 


Insert offset folio 228 here 81259.228

Llr. to Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown 

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL 

May 23, 2013 

Page 2 

the Greater Antelope Valley Economic Alliance, more than 10 percent of 

Palmdale's workforce self-identifies as being in the construction, 

engineering or architecture industry. Our people are ready to get to work. 

The City of Palmdale is pleased with the evolution the project, including 

the 2012 Business Plan. The plan sets forth the foundation for 

implementing the high-speed rail system as part of the state's overall railmodernization program. This is smart, logical, and ensures that the 

design and construction of this state-of-the-art system is integrated into 

existing systems, allowing for optimal usage and multi-rnodal benefit. 

There has also been significant progress made since Governor Brown 

reaffirmed his commitment to the project. From new leadership, including 

a project-focused staff that is striving towards implementing a successful 

program, the Authority has made great strides in moving toward their goal 

of breaking ground this year. 

In closing, I want to thank the Congressional Committee for their efforts to 

ensure that the development of the California High-Speed Rail project is 

transparent, with accurate information, It is with this in mind that we 

submit this letter and offer any additional testimony in the future. 

C: 

Palmdale City Council 

David Childs 

Mike Mischel 

Sincerely, 
262 


Insert offset folio 229 here 81259.229

~tatt ;iuflbing anti (!Construction '1rrabez qcouncil ROBBIE HUNTER 

May 23, 2013 

The Honorable leffDenham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

of ataHfornia 

CharteJ1!d by 

BUILDING AND CONSTRUC'tION TRADES 

DEPARTME-NT 

AFL ~ CIO 

1730 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington;DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Denham: 

J. TOM BACA SI>¢AETAhY.TlttJiSUA!!R 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on Califomia's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to om' transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of Califomia 's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Bnilding Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amOlmt of time, building it once and doing it right 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode 

of mass transit for the population of this state, bnt will evcntnally lead, we believe, to a 

nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in 

our skies, and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be 

achieved and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will 

serve the public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as 

only the economic multiplier of infrastmcture and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail wil! bring right now. We stronglysuppcrt getting this project moving 

now, and strongly oppose any fmther deJays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands o1'jol1s will be created, both short·term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

1225-S,h S'r08t. Suite 375 . Sacramento. CA 95814· (816) 443-3302 ' FAX (916) 443-8204 
263 


Insert offset folio 230 here 81259.230

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

May 23, 2013 

Page -2-

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally <il1maging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with popUlation centers 100 to 500 miles apm1, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. Califomia, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more, 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe wilt serve the public for 

decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Robbie Hunter 

President 

RH:mb 

opeiu#291afl-cio 
264 


Insert offset folio 231 here 81259.231

"~It 's good hu.siness /0 do business with an ,1GC memher, " 

OFJilCEHS 

R..md~' DIt"l:b~ P....,su).m( 

J"hn Oa1l, $f,1I0r Vic£' Pl'~.'i<l~rlt 

Curfwtlt? Vi .. .,PI~;idr'" 

J"\mU""llin ..... T r-ens"r-e1' 

.rorm N\man, IrnulI:;d'~{t' Pn~f 1"l',i'!~1!f 

ll'lIltl:ts HIIl~m>Ml, CEO 

30'>'5B~ptJ.>n.Dunlel'm"d 

Wf5ISatra1n~'lij'j.C,\\l569J 

('H6):m-Z42!fh(9J6)371-13~1. 

F.-mail: ~l!C.~C@flg~""..~.O.1l" 

flKGIONALOFFIO;S 

NO!1h~m C"IWH1lia 

13<>0 Willow I' .. ~~ RII~d, Suht 11lJfl 

C~ut"nl. ("..,\ 945:W 

(92S) ti27-2422 I Fllx (n5) &27.,f()4! 

E-mA,L,li\:tll,,,th@,,gr-tll.&r:: 

!0Xr6 W. G!\ ... ·c,~ Av'm,,~S""tJ., Sul/{' I(lO 

Wv~tC{>'·iH.\,C"91191l 

,(16) 60fj..-SSOO It·~,,(61.6) !"tOS_:"811l 

~:-'I1I1;I: <i!f"~o~lill<;.[l'"lX·~~.(lIl:: 

DISTRICTS 

EtlrC~iU)jJSI>M!'\ 

(530);!46·116.18IFA~(S31l)0t4747n 

£:'-"mil, ~~t''l'dd'll~@frn''I~'"Tl~f.''~i 

Odl:l.$i"o:l 

{916}.nl-24n i f~~ (916) 37J-HS2 

t-m~;l, aJtc~llt!';"~C·<~.Qll:: 

S"lI.i'ralltil'!:o 8~l'A'l'la 

m:'-) 82f.-2412ffat (n5j 82i-1042 

E-,"~!l, "g<11odhrQ"!iI~t·t~.ory: 

~fm\~Clllr';> 

W!IJ}n'·.HlllfJ:''Il.(JD8)7!I·'~i 

£.nl~'I: ~"l:~Ml"th('!,!I:'l~-<"().o'"lt 

M"olereyll"y 

\91SJIl17-Z..J2l l rp,\{.nSjS27·4Q4! 

f;..m"il: "j(c~lO'{h:ii)"~f·,~.!)rj\ 

May 23, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham (Chairman) 

The Honorable Corrine Brown (Ranking Member) 

Subcommittee on Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representative 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

The Associated General Contractors of California (AGC) is the largest 

statewide construction trade association in California representing oyer 

1,000 contractors and construction related finns throughout the State. 

AGC is in strong support of the high speed rail project and recommends the 

construction begin as soon as possible. 

With unemployment in the Central Valley at the highest level in California and 

well above the national average it is vitallo place an emphasis on maximum job 

opportunities for the residents of this region. This project will help bring 

employment stability to the area, helping local economies and supporting small 

businesses. 

Improvingjob opportunities, reducing travel time and reducing commuter costs are 

just a few of the benefits. A bonus to the traveler will be an improvement to the 

local commuter train service that will accompany this project. This wi!! add to the 

fiscal improvement of the state. 

Californians look to a day when travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco will be 

accomplished in 2 and V, hours without reservations or long security check lines. 

Travel to and from Central California will be rapid at reasonable rates. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas T. Holsman, CEO 

AGC of California 

Till'. ASSOCIA"J'E]) G~:Nr.RA1, CUNTRAC1'()nS nF r",LfFonNfA, r1\!C. 
265 


Insert offset folio 232 here 81259.232

~ALLIANCE :~.c,~j FOR JOBS 

1415 L Street, Suite 1080 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Office: (916) 446-2259 

Fax: (916) 446-2253 

www,rebuildca.org 

------------------------------- Advocate for the Heavy Construction Industry 

May 25, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

The California Alliance for Jobs - a unique labor-management partnership that represents more 

than 2,500 heavy construction companies and 80,000 union construction workers in Northern 

and Central California - strongly supports the state's visionary High Speed Rail proposal. 

The Alliance believes that investing in high-speed rail is vital to accommodate the future 

mobility needs of a growing population. The blended system that has been developed will 

benefit California's overall passenger rail system by beginning construction on dedicated highspeed rail infrastructure in the Central Valley while investing in improvements to existing 

regional rail systems that high-speed trains will ultimately utilize to connect the state's larger 

population centers. 

We also believe the High Speed Rail Authority has made impressive progress since Governor 

Brown reaffirmed his commitment to the project. New leadership has been brought on board 

and the 2012 Business plan has set the foundation for implementing the high-speed rail system 

as part of the state's overall rail modernization program. Additionally, Authority cost estimates 

Operating 

Engineers 

Local Union #3 

--------------------------------

Associated General 

Contractors of 

California 

No California 

District Council of 

Laborers 

United 

Contractors 

No. California 

Carpenters Regional 

Council 
266 


Insert offset folio 233 here 81259.233

and revenue and ridership forecasts have received rigorous review by independent experts that 

deemed the projections to be reasonable and realistic. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly to our members, the job creation and economic 

development associated with constructing and operating the system will be enormous. The 

project will create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years, beginning this year as the first 

phase of construction gets under way. That will give our state's fragile economic recovery a 

much-needed boost and be especially beneficial in the Central Valley, where unemployment 

rates currently stand in excess of 20 percent. 

Again, our members strongly support continued support for this visionary undertaking. 

Operating 

Engineers 

Local Union #3 

5inc~ 

~ JEarp 

~-.tcutive Director, Alliance for Jobs 

Associated General 

Contractors of 

California 

No. California 

District Council of 

laborers 

United 

Contractors 

No. California 

Carpenters Regional 

Council 
267 


Insert offset folio 234 here 81259.234

http://www.sbsun.com/opinions/ci_23090594/high-speed-mil-plan-is-right-track 

High-speed rail plan is on the right track l/asan lkrora San Bernardino County SUit 

Posted: sbsun.com 

Some former high-speed rail supporters have expressed concern recently about the current path being taken by the 

Califomia High-Speed Rail Authority in its effort to develop an SOO-mile system, with trains running up to 220 mph 

connecting Califomia1s urban centers. 

The idea of developing a fast, efficient and reliable rail system that is connected to regional intercity rail has been a 

goal for transportation agencies and policy experts in California for more than two decades. Voters validated that 

goal in 2008 by supporting Proposition lA, putting $9.95 billion behind the concept. 

But while it is one thing to conceptualize a mega-project such as this, reality and practicality may dictate a different 

course, which is where we're at today with the rail authority's blended approach to high-speed rail. Supported by a 

wide variety of local and regional transportation agencies, lawmakers and Gov. Brown, this well-thought-out, 

cost-saving alternative calls for high-speed trains to share tracks with local commuter trains in urban areas~ 

decreasing the footprint of the projectls right-of-way, minimizing impacts in congested cities, and decreasing costs. 

For a multitude ofreasons, it's the right thing to do. 

For high-speed rail to succeed, it must synergistically satisfy ridership needs for the state, be politically palatable to 

local communities and decision makers~ and be able to withstand the scrutiny of the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA). 

To that end, the CHSRA has been working with local agencies, such as the Southern California Association of 

Governments, Los Angeles County Metro, Metrolink, and Cal train, to develop a plan that can realistically deliver 

high-speed rail to Califomia. The CHSRA has integrated regional transportation plans and local agency experience 

to build what is essential- not just what is sexy. And theive done it in a manner that creates opportunity for 

immediate rail improvements up and down the state, not just in the Central Valley, ensuring taxpayers throughout 

the state see project benefits today - not in 20 years. 

Building a 220-mph system that blazes tl1Iough urban areas on dedicated infrastructure, knocking out parks, churches 

and homes. is unrealistic. Given the impacts to existing communities, environmental justice issues, and the politieal 

truths that neighborhoods can impact funding, it cannot be done. And it should not be done. Agencies developing 

infrastructure projects should not be able to steamrol! through communities unchecked. 

This certainty and the shift in local engagement in the project is directly reflected by the leadership of the CHSRA. 

Previously> the project was being designed in a vacuum, with little if any consideration given to local community 

impacts. Today, under Gov. Brown's appointees, including CHSRA Board Chair Dan Richard and Chief Executive 

Officer Jeff Morales, the CHSRA has embraced the so-called blended approach - a collaborative solution that is 

based on real-world challenges, not just engineering-driven design criteria. 

This concept would use about $1 billion in unallocated Proposition IA and other HSR funds for immediate rail 

improvements to existing Amtrak and commuter rail services in Southern Califomia. and is more realistic, 

constructible and respectful of people. 

What's more, this design upholds the voter mandate to build a system that can meet express travel times of2 hours, 

40 minutes between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is also consistent with successful designs in Europe and Asia. 

Another issue recently raised involves concerns about the independent utility of the initial segment. In fact, the 

CHSRA is working with Amtrak to ensure the 13O-mile segment between Merced and Bakersfield is usable and 

functional, as upheld by the Legislative Counsel las! June. It's not an optimal outcome, but a phased outcome 

benefiting existing rail travelers sooner rather than later, until the full high-speed system is delivered. And it is legal, 

conforming to Prop. I A voter protections and its controls that narrowly define how the funds are appropriated. 

P~g('; I on May 24, 2013 04:39:10PM MDT 
268 


Insert offset folio 235 here 81259.235

http://www.sbsun.comlopinionslci_23090594/high-speed-rail-plan-is-right-track 

With all due respect to those who had the vision to dream the high-speed rail project and the political acuity to 

capture the public's attention and pass Proposition 1 A, the project is now in a different but necessary phase. 

Today's leaders understand the road ahead requires collaboration, a broad-minded understanding of what is needed, 

and the discipline to put forth a plan that can be sustained by California's communities. 

Hasan lkhrata is executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments. 

Page2of2 May 24, 2013 04:39:lOPM MDT 
269 


Insert offset folio 236 here 81259.236

Los ANGELES AREA 

CHA~BER OF COMMERCE 

12.Sth anni lJersary 

May 28, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, 

and Hazardous Materials 

The Honorable Corrine Brown, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, 

and I Iazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U$. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: SUPPORT for California High Speed Rail 

Dear Chairman Denham aod Ranking Member Brown: 

On behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, 1 write to express our 5UPP0l1 for the 

California High Speed Rail project. We believe Southern California would benefit from this project as it 

would s.erve as an economic powerhouse for the state by creating construction jobs, stimulating small 

business, improving air quality and updating our aging infrastructure system, Investing in high-speed rail 

is vital to accommodate future mobility needs of a growing population and we believe that despite initiaJ 

challenges, significant progress has been made since Governor BrOWll reaffirmed his commitment to the 

project. 

The adoption ofthe 2012 Business Plan set the foundation for implementing the hjgh~speed rail system as 

part of the state's overall rail modernization program. Authority cost estimates and revenue and ridership 

forecasts have received rigorous review by independent experts that deemed the estimates to be 

reasonable and realistic. The Chamber appreciates the renewed commitment to improve communications 

and relationships with the communities that will be affected by construction or operations of the highspeed rail system; including outreach with business and property owners, 

We supported Prop lA in 2008 and continue to advocate that high speed rail is a worthwhile investment 

to move our state towards a 21 st century infrastructure system. For highways alone to keep up with 

population growth in the next couple decades, we would have to construct 3,000 additional lane miles at a 

cost of $30-$55 million per lane mile. OUf economy is driven by the ability to move people and goods 

throughout the state, thus it is imperative that we invest in a multi~modal transportation infrastructure 

system that alleviates our dependence on for¢ign oil, reduce..>; congestion and improves our air quality, 

The construction industry was one of the hardest hit during the economic recession and remains so in our 

fragile recovery. Every $1 billion spent on infrastructure investment equals 18,000 full-time job 

equivalents. This largest single infrastructure project in the history of the U,S, has the potential to unlock 

the growth and job-creation our state needs to continue recovering, For these reasons, we support lhe 

continued development of the California High Speed Rail project 

Sincerely, 

Gary Toebben 

President & CEO 
270 


Insert offset folio 237 here 81259.237

May 22, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

Thank you for planning to hold a Congressional Field Hearing on the California high speed rail 

project in Madera, California on May 28. It is very appropriate, and very much appreciated, for 

you to bring your hearing to California to hear directly from the residents, businesses, local 

governments, and associations who will experience this project first hand. I understand that 

there will not be time available for public testimony at the hearing, so I want to take this 

opportunity to let you know that the Bay Area Council supports California high speed rail and to 

explain why we think it is a sound investment for our region, our state, and our nation. 

The Bay Area Council was founded in 1945 by visionary business leaders who believed that they 

could, and must, playa role in guiding the development of a prosperous post-war Bay Area 

region. Over its 68 years, the Council has had a front-row seat (and been directly involved) as 

the Bay Area transformed from a loose family of small towns and agricultural enclaves into the 

world's leading innovation region and an economic engine that drives California's economy. 

This growth and prosperity was not preordained, nor was it an accident. It grew, in large part, 

upon generational investments made by the State of California and the federal government. 

The University of California system, especially at Berkeley. The highway system and the Bay 

Area Rapid Transit system. The Hetch Hetchy water system. Federal investment in research and 

development that jump-started Silicon Valley. These foundational investments not only spurred 
271 


Insert offset folio 238 here 81259.238

economic growth and prosperity, but they also provided the necessary systems to support the 

efficient operation of a growing region. 

Today we continue to reap the benefits of these wise past investments, but, I regret to 

acknowledge, our region, our state, and our nation are largely failing to make today's similar 

investments that will support our prosperity in the future. California high speed rail is one 

important effort to reverse this trend, to proactively invest in the long-run prosperity of 

California. It won't singlehandedly solve every challenge that California faces in the 21st 

Century-the Council believes that our region, our state, and our nation need to do much 

more-but it will lay a necessary foundation upon which California population growth can be 

supported. 

California, already the nation's most populous and most urbanized state, is going to grow and 

become yet more urbanized. By 2060, our state will have 15 million new residents, and growth 

will continue throughout the Century. In the 1950s, the Bay Area Council foresaw a region 

facing tremendous population growth and urbanization, and we envisioned and drove the 

creation ofthe BART system thattoday is our region's essential transit spine. In the same 

manner, as we look at the growth and urbanization ahead for California, we see a statewide 

spinal network of high speed rail as the solution. True, it is expensive and will take decades to 

complete. This was equally true of the BART system, but it did not mean that BART was 

infeasible or unwise. It only meant that Bay Area leaders, including the Bay Area Council, 

needed to approach our future from a position of resolve and confidence. We have equal 

confidence and resolve in California's future and in our state's ability to deliver high speed rail. 

The cost of the system is, no doubt, of great concern to you. As a business organization 

comprised of member companies and CEOs who must shepherd their investments carefully, the 

Council does not take the cost lightly either. But two factors have led us to comfort with the 

cost. The first is that this is an investment in California's next 100 years, and we consider the 

total construction cost to be amortized over that very long time frame and over generations, 

and growing numbers, of Californians. The second and critical factor is that, under the 

leadership of Governor Jerry Brown and Dan Richard, Chairman of the High Speed Rail 

Authority, the project will be delivered in incremental segments that each deliver immediate 

utility to California residents and businesses. 

In the Bay Area, the Authority will invest in electrifying tracks owned and used by Caltrain, the 

passenger rail system that serves the San Francisco-Silicon Valley innovation corridor, perhaps 

the most economically productive 50 miles in the nation. With electrification, Caltrain will 

provide faster, more frequent, more reliable, quieter, and less-polluting service that will 

support economic and job growth in the corridor. And when construction ofthe statewide high 

speed rail system reaches San Jose, its trains will be able to use the same tracks and electric 

power system. It's an investment in long-term future that also delivers near-term benefits. In a 

similar way, improvements to Metrolink passenger tracks in the Los Angeles region will deliver 

near-term benefit to residents and employers, while also laying a foundation that will be used 

later by the statewide high speed rail system. 

P 41 1.981.6600 

F 415.931.6408 

':01 Cd1fomii! ')ne12-t )'uilp i4S{) 

San Fr.3flCisCo. C:dliorni,) 94'\ 11 
272 


Insert offset folio 239 here 81259.239

The Central Valley, where you are holding your hearing, will receive an all-new stretch of high 

speed tracks. When complete-and long before full completion of the statewide systemthese new tracks will serve as the test-bed for high speed trains, and they will provide a higherspeed (125 mph) route for use by conventional Amtrak trains. It is true, as I am sure you will 

explore in your hearing, that there are local impacts to construction of the all-new track. Such 

is the case with construction of any generational investment, but you can take comfort in the 

fact that under the California Environmental Quality Act-the most stringent such act in the 

nation-affected residents and businesses have a powerful platform from which to press their 

case to the Authority. They have done so, and the Authority has responded, and CEQA lawsuits 

have been settled to the satisfaction of plaintiffs. In fact, one reason that the cost of the 

project has increased is that the design and alignment has been modified in response to 

concerns raised during the environmental process. This should be taken a positive sign that 

the Authority is working in good faith to deliver a project that meets the needs not only of the 

state as a whole, but also of the immediate neighbors who will be affected. 

The next few years will be an exciting time in California. Construction in the Central Valley will 

create tens of thousands of jobs in one of the most economically distressed areas in the nation, 

and Americans will see our nation's first high speed train system begin to rise. Caltrain will 

convert from slow and noisy diesel trains to quiet and fast electric vehicles, providing a smallscale glimpse into the future promise of California high speed rail. And we will begin to look to 

the construction ofthe next subsequent link in the network and the services that it will support, 

all the while keeping our eyes on the long-term vision that will link our state from North to 

South. 

Thank you again for bringing your hearing to California and listening to our residents, 

businesses, and organizations. I hope that you will return regularly to view firsthand the 

development of California high speed rail and the benefits that it brings. 

8:~~ Jim Wunderman 

President and CEO 

JW:mc 

P 41 \ 981.6600 

F 415 981.6408 

)01 C.~!iiol!1i<l Stn::'iH, Suitt' i450 

$.1r1 Fram;:isco. C)lj{Offtl., 9<1 i 11 
273 


Insert offset folio 240 here 81259.240

ORAINGECOUINTY 

BUSINESS COUNCIL 

May 24. 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

OtANGE C OUNTYS LE/1DING VOICE OF BUlINE55 

Subcommittee on Railroads. Pipelines. and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Repn!sentatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads. Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

Orange County Business Council is the leading voice of business for America's sixth largest county. 

OCBC's mission is to enhance the region's economic prosperity while maintaining a high quality of life. 

OCBC focuses on four initiatives: improving infrastructure. enhancing workforce development, 

increasing the supply of workforce housing and maintaining a robust economic climate. OCBC strongly 

supports the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) project. 

Developing high-speed rail in California is essential for continued growth and prosperity. OCBC 

contends that the High-Speed Rail Authority is meeting its promise to California voters. HSR must start 

somewhere, and the Initial Operating Segment and strategy identified in the revised 2012 Business Plan 

is worth pursuing. We look forward to HSR's eventual arrival in Orange County. 

Transportation infrastructure is a building block to the local and regional economy and businesses in 

California need mobility choices for both operations and employees. Transportation solutions like HSR 

help keep and attract companies to California and Orange County. Without question, HSR will provide 

relief to capacity challenged freeways and airports while simultaneously improving the state's network of 

passenger rail options. The section of HSR that travels between Los Angeles and Orange County is part 

of the LOSSAN corridor, the second busiest passenger rail corridor in the country. HSR will enhance the 

LOSSAN corridor in such a way that benefits existing commuter and freight rail services for both 

Southern California and the entire national goods movement network. As robust passenger rail ridership 

already exists, the introduction of HSR increases train ridership in the region - supporting the review of 

independent experts that have validated the Authority's ridership and revenue projections as reasonable 

and realistic. 
274 


Insert offset folio 241 here 81259.241

Page Two 

SupportHSR 

May 24, 2013 

OCBC is grateful for the Congressional Sub-Committee's efforts to ensure that this ground-breaking 

project is undertaken in a manner that is transparent and factual and appreciate the opportunity to 

reaffirm our long-standing and continued support. 

Sincerely, 

Lucy Dunn 

President and CEO 

Orange County Business Council 

LD:jl:bs 

Cc: Bryan Starr, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, OCBC 
275 


Insert offset folio 242 here 81259.242

SiLICON 

~ 

VAlI.EY~ 

lEADE~P 

:!001 Galeway PltK:R StJilt lOlE 

/4O!lj5()1·1864Fax(408)5fJl·7867 

w»w-s~Jg.ay 

CARL GUARD/fI.!Q 

Prosidem&CfO 

B$l1rrfOflicers: 

STEVE BERGLUND, Chhir 

TtimbleNattigalion 

GREG BECKER. V.:ce CfT3it 

SVBFinrmeiatGroup 

TOM WERNER, Former Ct.air 

SUI/Power 

.AART DE GEUS. Former m,1ir 

Synops)'s 

MICHAEL SPLlNrER, Fonna Ch8ir 

ApplfrxfMilIS!iafs,!rli:. 

ROBERT SHOFfNER 

5ecmliIrylrrcasurer 

Ci/ib1Jflk 

lJrJl1rrfMembers: 

JOHNADAlilS 

Welts FlJfgtJ Bank 

SHElL YE ARCHAMBEAU 

MetricS/ream, Inc 

ANDY6Al£ 

5u/kAkCollsirlKli;Jn 

GEORGE BLUMENTHAL 

UnlYmily ofCi1/ifornifl, Sama GJlJZ 

JOHN80LAND 

XQED 

TOM BOTTORFF 

Paci(ICGas&EIec(iir: 

CHRIS BOYD 

KaiswPermanellfe 

TORY BRUNO 

Ux:kheed Mf}{/itr Spaer: Systems 

DAVTOCVSH 

VifglilAI/ler:r(B 

LWYDDfAN 

Orgr.iiyHeallh 

STEPHEN DEWIIT Hewlctt-pjK/{iird Company 

MICHAEL ENf.l-L SJ. 

S8nt8CfaraUri'lersity 

8tH £NQV/Sf 

Suyker [nd05CoPY 

TOMFAtLON 

if1fiflerJ 

fOMGEORGENS 

NerApp.fnc. 

KfNGOiDMAN 

YBhoo! 

RAQUE!. GONlALEZ 

Bank of America 

iAURAGUlO 

IBM 

BARBARA HOUAPFEL SAP KEN KANNAPPAN 

PfrmlJrJfii'cs 

GARYLAUfR 

eHeaJm 

TARKA,"J MANER 

~seTeC'brKJ/{)gy 

ALBERTOMAS 

BDiJiostknces 

KENMCNEELY 

AT&T 

KE'iffNMURAf 

Syooex 

iES PEDERSEN Web(.o! 

KfMPOLESE 

CfearSrreef 

MOQAY(JUMf 

SanJo~ State Univmity 

vtvEK RANAOWt 

TlBCO 

AlAtlSAUMAN 

VaatagePointCfJpila!Pur/ners 

RONS[GE. 

fche/anCOIpOfarion 

flACTULLY 

SMJosr:McrcliryNews 

RfCKWALlACE 

KIA-TerlCO! 

JED VORK 

San Francisco 49cfS 

£slab/lstreli in 1918by 

DAVID PACKARD 

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

[ write on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group to express our support for High· 

Speed Rail (HSR) in California. 

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, founded in 197& by David Packard of Hewlett· 

Packard, represents more than 375 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues, 

programs and campaigns that affect the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Vaney, 

including energy, transportation, education, housing, health care, tax policies, and the 

environment. Leadership Group members collectively provide nearly one of every three 

private sector jobs in Silicon Valley and have more than $3 trillion in annual revenue. 

The Leadership Group has long championed improvements to our transportation system that 

improve our quality of life and ability to conduct business. The organization supports HSR, 

particularly as it currently is envisioned - as a critical part of the State's overall rail 

modernization program. We have been terribly impressed with the leadership provided by 

Governor Brown and his appointees to the HSR Authority. Their approach towards the 

project and community has breathed new life into the project and set it on a solid course to 

realization. 

We particularly embrace the blended approach to the project, with simultaneous investment 

in dedicated high·speed rail infrastructure in the Central Valley and in improvements to 

existing regional rail systems_ 

Implementing a statewide rail modernization program for the 21 8t Century involves 

partnering with federal, state and regional transportation agencies and groups. We are grateful 

for this partnership with the federal government and look forward to continued collaboration. 

SincerelYl 

Jessica Zenk 

Senior Directorl Transportation Policy 
276 


Insert offset folio 243 here 81259.243

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham, Chairman 

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on 

Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

SUBJECT: Oversight of California High Speed Rail 

Dear Congressmembers Denham and Brown, 

The Honorable Corrine Brown, Ranking Member 

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on 

Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) supports the construction of the California High Speed 

Rail (HSR) system. 

With our $1.9 trillion economy, California ranks among the 10 largest economies in the world. However, our 

state's transportation infrastructure is straining to keep up with increased demands. Due to inefficiencies in our 

roadways, Californians waste nearly $19 billion annually in lost productivity and wasted fuel. 

HSR will connect California's urban centers, providing increased access and mobility to residents in 

communities throughout the state. The system will optimize the use of existing regional transit systems, 

immediately providing early investment dollars to improve Southern California's rail system, Its phased 

approach will ensure Californians realize the benefits of HSR sooner and more cost-effectively. 

The construction of this system will also put thousands of Californians back to work. The construction industry 

has been decimated by the economic recession, Construction of the first segment of the Initial Operating 

Section alone is expected to generate 100,000 jobs. 

Additionally, California's economic competiveness will be strengthened by creating a more efficient and 

effective transportation system. Station cities are anxious to reap the economic development benefits that will 

follow the transit-oriented development planned at each station, including retail centers, restaurants and 

improved multimodal centers promoting more walKable communities, 

All told, HSR is critical to California's sustainable economic recovery. It will ensure that California can once 

again lead the way in innovation, transportation planning and economic development opportunities. 

We strongly encourage you to support construction of the HSR system. The cost of not building the system will 

leave our highways mired in congestion and our economic foundation weak. 

Sincerely, 

David Adelman 

Chair 

Stuart Waldman 

President 
277 


Insert offset folio 244 here 81259.244

the Valley to access: 

• Better, higher paying jobs; 

• Higher quality medical care at more affordable cost; 

• Entertainment, cultural, sports and recreation attractions that enhance quality of life. 

High speed rail will also allow companies easily to access and bring their operations to Central 

Valley cities. ArOlmd the world, HSR has drawn companies in search of lower costs to cities 

located between large metropolitan areas. Valley cities can expect massive investment in their 

economies with the convenient access HSR provides. 

The Valley's current dependence on driving to reach these important centers of economic and 

cultural activity not only limits its potential today but creates barriers that will become more 

serious in future years because: 

• The cost of driving will continue to rise - not just for fuel, but for maintenance, 

insurance and tires as well as vehicle purchase prices and financing costs. 

• Road congestion will continue to be an intractable problem that will increase trip times 

and reduce reliability. 

• The anxiety, stress and fatigue of fighting heavy traffic, giant trucks, sudden fogs, and 

all too frequent wrecks will continue to degrade quality of life. 

Of even greater concern is the fact that the Valley's dependence on cars will limit its ability to 

attract or even retain the younger generations so necessary to its long term vitality. A report 

released on May 14,2013 by the U. S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund 

concluded that: 

• The Millennials (people born between 1983 and 2000) are now the largest generation in 

the United States. 

• Millennials are more likely to want to live in urban and walkable neighborhoods; they 

are more open to non-driving forms of transportation than older Americans. 

• The Millennial generation has led the recent change in transportation trends--driving 

significantly less than previous generations of young Americans. 

• Their choices will playa crucial role in determining future transportation infrashucture 

needs. 

Because the Valley currently has so few alternatives to driving, it is not currently positioned to 

accommodate this significant shift in mobility preferences. For most people, flying is out of the 

question. Yesterday, United quoted the following one way fares from Fresno: $594 to Los 

Angeles and $616 to San Francisco. Also, airlines have been reducing service to smaller 

airports. 

The train, however, is an increasingly popular choice. In 2012, the San Joaquin trains carried 

1,124,900 passengers - a 43% increase in just six years. Fresno alone had 384,000 

passengers - that's equal to 40% of all people who live within 25 miles of the Fresno station. 

182 Howard Street, #322, San Francisco, CA 94105 

415.658.5322 . www.ca4hsr.org 
278 


Insert offset folio 245 here 81259.245

• Train fares are affordable. Yesterday, Amtrak quoted just $32 from Fresno to San 

Francisco and $34 to Los Angeles. 

• But the service is slow: roughly 4 \12 hours to either the Bay Area or Southern California. 

• Moreover, the train trip requires transfer to a bus (with no handicap capability) to reach 

both San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

• The trip to Los Angeles is particularly unattractive, requiring a grueling 2 \12 hour ride 

from Bakersfield over the Grapevine on 1-5. 

Despite these drawbacks, the public's growing embrace of train travel in the Valley 

demonstrates how peoples' mobility preferences are changing and shows the latent demand for 

high speed raiL Slash the trip times, provide a "single-seat ride" with on time arrivals and as 

experience on the East Coast and in other countries has shown - the peoples' choice tips toward 

rail. Operating costs become more efficient, too, as the equipment and personnel are able to 

cover more trips- and serve many more passengers. 

"Predictions are always difficult, especially about the future," Yogi BetTa famously quipped. 

The high speed rail plan required such difficult predictions. While the economic crisis of the 

past several years suggested the possibility of reduced popUlation growth, our state's long term 

trend has always been upward, In 2012, as economic recovery continued, California added 

nearly 300,000 new residents, pushing the total population to almost 38 million. 

While we cannot predict the future precisely, we can be certain that the Golden State's 

ingenuity, opportunity and ideal living conditions will continue to attract businesses and 

residents in search of the California Dream. The question is not whether California's population 

will grow to 50 million, only how quickly. High speed rail will both stimulate and support 

future growth. Since maj or infrastructure projects all have long lead times, we need to start 

now. 

No one denies that $68 billion is a lot of money. But $235 billion is significantly more and 

that's the amount of taxpayer funds that the State of California will likely spend over the next 

15 years on conventional transportation (85% of it road related), Unfortunately, this spending at 

best will only maintain the status quo, which people find increasingly unsatisfactory. 

The high speed rail project represents just 29 cents of every dollar that state will spend on 

legacy infrastructure. But, that additional 29 cents will do more than build just another 

congested lane or another crowded gate. It will provide Californians with an entirely new, stateof-the-art mobility choice that delivers comfort, convenience, safety and affordability that the 

infrastructure ofthe last century can never provide. 

Without affordable, high quality mobility, it is unlikely that the Valley will participate in the 

prosperity and quality of life that other Californians will enjoy in the deeades to eome. The 

Valley's future hinges on building the high speed rail system. We need to start here, this year. 

Like the Northeast Corridor, this project has national significance. Like the Northeast CotTidor, 

it will provide mobility that makes the nation more globally competitive. Like the Northeast 

182 Howard Street, #322, San Francisco, CA 94105 

415.658.5322 . www.ca4hsr.org 
279 


Insert offset folio 246 here 81259.246

Corridor, it merits significant federal investment. 

A strong commitment from the Federal Government today will not only accelerate completion 

but lay the foundation for private sector investment. Congress can and should be the catalyst 

for the fimding needed to complete the project and deliver the benefits of modem mobility to 

the Valley, to California and to the nation in a shorter period of time. 

We are depending on our elected representatives in Congress to provide that commitment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this vitally important project. 

Sincerely yours, 

/ .. f)).j) . (JifJl'fiYI--- ~ George L. Chilson 

Chairman 

Californians For High Speed Rail 

Cc: 

Governor Edmund G Brown, Jr. 

Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration 

Karen Hedlund, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration 

Dan Richard, Chairperson, California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Jeff Morales, CEO, California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

House Minority Leader Representative Nancy Pelosi 

182 Howard Street, #322, San Francisco, CA 94105 

415.658.5322· www.ca4hsr.org 
280 


Insert offset folio 247 here 81259.247

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable leff Denham 

Cn.irman 

Subcommittee on Railroads! Pipelines .. and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Buiiding 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chainnan Dcnh81TI and Ranking Member Brown: 

rhe Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

[10ARtI Of DIRECTORS 201~ 

KENYE'AG.E'R. CI-t"IR 

TOM NOlAN, VICE CHMR 

jos~C1S'lEROS 

MALIA COHEN 

JERRY DEAL 

ASHKAlRA 

ARlHUR L t lOYD 

ADRIENNE: fiSSIER 

PERR'l' WOODWARD 

MICHAElJ.SCAt-ilON 

EKEcUT!\lE Dwu:clUI( 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines. and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Thank you for holding the upcoming field hearing regarding the status of the California high-speed rail 

project. The project has evolved significantly over the last several years and. thanks to new leadership and 

a recently updated business plan, it is poised 10 provide the state with the benefits that CaHfomitl v(,ters 

nnticipated when they approved investing nearly S j 0 billion in a state-of-the-art high-speed mil system in 

2008. 

Over the last two years, the CaIifomia High Speed Rail Authority has. prioritized the involvement of 

public transportation agencies and local comrnunitics in their efforts. This cullaboration has resulted in 

the adoption ofa 2012 Business Plan .and two regional Memorandums of Understanding demonstl"Jting 

that the Authority is committed to advancing the project in a way that addresses tocal concerns to the 

fuBest extent possible and provides significant near-term public tmnSpot1ution benefits to surrounding 

communities. 

Tbc blended system approach that the Authority has embraced wiH help control costs. facilitate project 

delivery and minimize impacts 011 loc~d communities by allowing high-speed rait and existing commuter 

systems to share tnfi:astructurc whcre uppropriatc. As a part of this approach, the Authority has also 

committed to accelerating investment in improvements that wiB offer morc immediate benefits to ~xisting 

regional rail systems. 

For Caltraill,. this me:;:U1S an opportunity to advance the modernization and electrification of the rail 

corriuor. Thanks 10 investrnent associmcd with tile high-speed rail proJect,. Bay Area commuters can took 

forward to the transformation ofCalErain~s existing diesel service imo a modernized system featuring 

high~performance electric vehicJes that win connect Peninsula cornmunitics with quieter.,. safer,. more 

reliable, fasrer and/or more frequent service to more riders and more station~ between San Francisco and 

San Jose. 

With investments like these rcady to bc made throughout the state, Ca!i!ornians can tfnaHy look forward 

to a large scale statewide infrastructure project that will rosIer the kind of economic growth and job 

creation envisioned when the program was prioritized as a pan oft!>e American Recovery and 

Reinvestnlcnt Act. In the Bay Arca alonc; investment in the modernization and electrification of the 

Caltrain corridor is projected to create 9,581 job-years of r ull time employment for California workers 

and adds almost $1 bill ion to the gross stale product. 

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 

1250 San Carlos Ave. - P.O. Box 3006 

San Carlos. CA 94070-1306 650.508.6269 
281 


Insert offset folio 248 here 81259.248

Page 2 

May 24,2013 

Honorabk J,,[f Deham 

Honorable Corrine Brown 

The Bay Area's population continues to grow along with the rest of the stale',. The creation of a 

statewide high speed rail system and the associated improvements to local and regional public 

transportation systems are an essential part of our efforts to ensure that we can accommodate this growth 

by connecting communities to each other and the rest of the state wilh efficient, reliable, clean, affordable 

transportation alternatives thal also help promote the stale's economic competitiveness. 

Once again, thank you for providing an OppOl1lll1lty to highlight these imp0l1ant efforts. If you have any 

questions, please feellrec to get in touch anytime. 

Sincerely, 

Michael J. Scanlon 

Executive Director 

cc: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers 80ard of Direetors 

Executive Team 

Caltrain State Lcgi,lativc Delegation 

Caltrain Federal Legislative Delegation 

Jeff Morales, CEO High Speed Rail i\uthority 
282 


Insert offset folio 249 here 81259.249

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

chairman 

GREATER MERCED HIGH-SPEED RAil COMMITTEE 

m W. EI ponal Drive 

Merced, eA 95348 

709-740-5868 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.s. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

I am writing as the Chairman of the Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee to express my 

ongoing support of the California High-Speed Rail system and the federal funding that will 

contribute to the construction of this statewide system. 

I am proud to say that since 2003 members of the Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee 

have worked hard to advocate for and advance high-speed rail, and educate local residents and 

community representatives about high-speed rail and the economic benefit it can bring to the 

Merced region. 

It is my understanding that the Congressional Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials, chaired by U.S. Representative Jeff Denham will hold a hearing in Madera 

to examine the status of the California High-Speed Rail project during an oversight field hearing 

next week. While J understand the frustration in the numerous ongoing challenges and 

changes with the proposed high-speed rail system, it is to be expected in the development, 
283 


Insert offset folio 250 here 81259.250

funding and construction of such a complex transportation system that has no precedent in the 

United States. 

The purpose of this letter is to urge you to truly consider the direct and indirect economic 

impacts high-speed rail will have for the State of California and the Central Valley region. I 

would also like to remind you that the eight county central valley region suffers from chronic 

double digit unemployment ranging from a low of 12.1 percent in Kern County to a high of 15.5 

percent in Merced County (according to the California Employment Development Department) 

as seen below: 

• Fresno -13.4 percent 

• Kern -12.1 percent 

• Kings -13.8 percent 

• Madera -12.4 percent 

• Merced -15.5 percent 

• San Joaquin -12.9 percent 

• Stanislaus -13.4 percent 

• Tulare -13.7 percent 

Given this sad and frustrating economic reality, I ask you what economic stimulus will you 

replace high-speed rail to bring NEW economic opportunities to your district and the Central 

Valley region? I also want to remind you that if our elected officials would have required a 

perfect flawless business plan before advancing UC Merced, there is a good chance it would 

have never been built and benefited the Merced and surrounding community. 

While I know it is your intent to block federal funding for the proposed system, I ask you to 

channel your energy and make recommendations on how to repair what flaws you see and 

criticisms you have. In terms of funding, I understand your concerns about funding such an 

expensive system, but I would like to remind you that some of the most significant 

infrastructure investments in our country were made during challenging economic times and 

that commerce would not have advanced if it were not for this infrastructure investment. 

in closing, I urge you to support federal funding to help develop and construct the California 

high speed rail system. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Lee Boese, Jr. 

Chairman 

Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee, inc. 
284 


Insert offset folio 251 here 81259.251

May 24'\ 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Dcnham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

"1 Will Ride" is a grassroots group of University students and young professionals advocating for sound 

transportation policy, specifically the California High Speed Rail project. Created by a group of students 

at UC Merced who believed they were not being heard, I Will Ride has grown to include students from 

campuses in every corner of the state. We are organized around the principle that our generation deserves 

world-class transportation, and that we are the ones who are willing to make a big investment to bring 

high-speed rail to California. 

While we recognize that this project has suffered from mismanagement under previous administrations, 

we applaud Governor Brown for bringing real reform to the California High Speed Rail Authority. Since 

the Governor began making structural changes to the governing body of California's High Speed Rail 

system, we have seen a number of improvements. Perhaps the most notable improvement is the reduced 

cost of the High Speed Rail business plan by approximately thirty billion dollars. We believe that the 

blended system dramatically reduces tile overall cost of the project and at the same time revives old 

railway infrastructure and stimulates the California economy. Given our high statewide unemployment 

rate, this is necessary for the betterment of communities all across the Golden State. Yet another 

testament to the improved management of this project is the recent bid to build High Speed Rail in 

California, w hieh came in under budget by millions of dollars. While we understand skepticism of such a 

large project during times of economic hardship, we fmd this kind of investment in our future to be 

necessary. It is the right project at the right time. This is not the time to sit idly by and let significant 

dollars slated for infrastructure improvement head to other state projects. My generation has a reputation 

for being ambitious, resourceful, even stubborn- but it is that persistence that helps to drive our hopes of 

being successfuL We hope to be lawyers, doctors, businessman, artists, songwriters, teachers, and 

parents. As we grow older and begin to give back to society, we hope to use High Speed Rail as an 

efficient, cost-effective mode of transportation. 

By investing in California, you are investing in our whole nation, in the great state of California, and in 

the people who dream to bettcr America's future. Above all else, we have one message: If you help us 

build it, we will ride it. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Lomio 

Founding member, I Will Ride 
285 


Insert offset folio 252 here 81259.252

I Will Ride Commentary 

By: Michael Lomio 

Spring is here, and while the season means many things to many people, to us college students, it 

means school is almost out. for a lucky few, it means graduating and entering the workforce. 

However, this spring is also especially important to us in the Central Valley, because the first 

major work on the high-speed rail project is just around the comer. 

Since Californians approved Proposition IA back in 2008, there has been a tremendous amount 

of effort put into designing and planning the system. Now, high-speed rail in California is poised 

to become a reality. "1 Will Ride," a group of students and young professionals dedicated to 

supporting the high-speed rail project, couldn't be more excited about this great step forward and 

what it means for our future as the next generation of trailblazers in the Golden State. 

One of the reasons we support high-speed rail as passionately as we do is because we know our 

generation wants new transportation options. As more people move away from their cars and 

onto alternative transportation, travel patterns have begun to show long-term changes. In fact, 

according to The Frontier Group, a world-renowned think tank, between 2001 and 2009 the 

average yearly number of miles driven by 16 to 34 year-olds has dropped by 23 percent. 

Now, you may be harkening back to your college days and thinking this trend simply proves that 

us starving students can't afford a car, or the insurance, or even buy enough gas to get anywhere. 

And just starting out in the workforce? Forget about it. You drove what you could afford to get 

you where you needed to go, and that was it. 

But the authors of the study also found that this trend towards reduced driving within younger 

age groups has occurred even among young people who are employed and financially stable. 

Now more than ever, young people are looking for alternative methods to get where they need to 

go. When planning for the future, does it make sense to look at the old transportation models and 

spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing more of the same? We don't think so. 

Over the past 10 years, the Central Valley has been the fastest growing region in the state. We've 

seen our population increase by 17 percent compared to 10 percent statewide. Today, the cities 

of fresno and Bakersfield have respectable popUlations of 500,000 and 350,000, and have 

become major financial, business, and academic centers. Should we think about widening 

Highway 99 to 10 lanes to accommodate traffic? How long until that fills up? And how much 

will maintenance on those lanes cost year after year? We think it's time for a new, more 

sustainable mode of long-range transportation. 

The students and young professionals that constitute "I Will Ride" take pride in going to college 

and working in a place that is proud of its agricultural roots and small-town feel and optimistic 

atmosphere. However, we also believe that we are ready to embrace high-speed rail and the 

countless economic and environmental benefits it will bring. Oftentimes, when we talk about 

high-speed rail, people ask us why the project is starting in the Central Valley instead of the Bay 
286 


Insert offset folio 253 here 81259.253

Area or LA. They'll say, "Isn't that the middle of nowhere'? Well, we don't think a thriving 

region like the Central Valley, with its seven million residents, can or should be considered the 

middle of nowhere. 

With the completion of high-speed rail, Central Valley residents will be connected to the rest of 

the state like never before. In nnder an hour, we will be able to travel to San Francisco or Los 

Angeles; without the hassle of airport security or high-priced gasoline. And, high-speed rail will 

make several stops in Central Valley cities, so folks from the Bay Area and Los Angeles will be 

able to more easily and frequently travel to Central Valley cities. Not only will this help 

revitalize Central Valley downtowns, the economic development associated with high-speed rail 

stations will bring in new sources of revenue and add jobs. 

In addition, UC Merced, CSU Fresno, and CSU Bakersfield have already begun exploring 

opportunities for high-speed rail focused educational programs. We could be on the cusp of 

becoming the nation's high-speed rail technology hub, a prospect that would only add to the 

immense benefits enjoyed by the Central Valley thanks to this project. 

If you're not sold on the statistics that project the future travel habits of young adults, you should 

also consider a recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). In their 

April 2013 report, the GAO found that the Authority'S methods and models they have used in 

their 2012 Business Plan are reasonable and once fully operational; the high-speed rail system 

will be able to operate without a government subsidy. 

It sounds like a win-win to us, and we have the facts to support it. High-speed rail is the future of 

the Central Valley, and of California, and it will benefit California'S residents for years to come. 

Ifthey build it, I will ride it. 
287 


Insert offset folio 254 here 81259.254

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chainnan Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

I wish to express my sincere appreciation and support to the CHSRA, Jeff Morales, Diana Gomez and 

members oftheir executive team for the fine work they have done thus far. We have met with responsive, 

professional, attentive representatives who have done an excellent job communicating with me and my 

staff about the proposed work to be done adjacent to our facilities, at every stage of the process. Not 

only have they listened but they have incorporated my concerns and offered realistic solutions. Three of 

our properties will be affected by the project; HSR staff members have returned calls, answered questions 

and helped develop viable options for redirecting our traffic flow in order to provide continuous La 

Tapatia Tortilleria operations. For that, I am appreciative. As a small, family-owned business J am 

encouraged and look forward to the many employment opportunities this project will create for the local' 

economy. 

Sincerely, 

Helen Chavez-Hansen 

President/Owner 

La Tapatia Tortll1eria, Inc. 

104 E. Belmont 

Fresno, CA 93701 

Ph: 559.441.1030 

Fx: 559.320.0219 

carlalombardi@lalapatiaca&fh'1l 
288 


Insert offset folio 255 here 81259.255

Building and Construction Trades Council 

o.f Alameda County, AFL-CIO 8400 Enlerprlse Way, #205 

AndrcssCluvet' 

Secretary-Treasurer 

Roo Stoker 

PresideJlt 

Fernando EstradE!. 

Vice President 

AUlD & Manne PElinters. #1176 

Boilermaker'S, #-549 

Brick & Tile Layers, #3 

Carpellters,#713 

Carpe,nteB. #2236 

Ca!pel & Linoleum, 11-12 

Cement Masons, #300 

Electrical Workers, #595 

May 28, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

Oakland, Ca. 94621 - btca@shcglobal.net 

(510) 4.10-8664, Fax 430-8128 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on 

California's High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our 

transportation system that we are eager to begin building. The Building Trades 

represents 395,000 construction workers in the state of California. Of the 51,000 

apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in 

apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are exclusively 

employed by plivate construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the 

project in the least amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

ElevatorConstructorsN8 Unemployment for construction workers in the Central VaHey of California is 

GI"',,, #169 among the highest in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, 

Hod C,m"" <166 efficient and badly needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this 

Insulators & Asbestos Workers, #16 state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system 

Iron Workers, #378 that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, eongestion in our skies, and total 

Laborers,. 1167 dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be 

Laborers, /1'304 achieved and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works 

Lathers,#6BL project that will serve the public and business, improve our environment, and 

Millwrights, #102 absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of infrastructure 

Operating Cnginem, #3 and construction jobs can. Paintern,#3 

Pile Drivers., #34 

Plaslerers,#66 

Plumbers & Steamfitters. #342 

Roofcrs,#81 

Sheet Metal Workers, #104 

Sign & Display, #S 1 0 

Sprink!crFitters,N433 

TeamsteT'S,#8S) 

UA, UiHiiies I Landscape, #355 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our 

environment needs eleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the 

hundreds of thousands of good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring light now. 

We strongly support getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any 

further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both 

short-term and permanent, including a grcat many in the Central Valley. So lets 

ereate those jobs and gct to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's 

transportation system is already overtaxed and our popUlation will reach 60 

million by mid-century. High- Speed Rail is the only viable means of making sure 

our transportation infrastructnre can meet our growing demand. Continuing to 

build more and more freeways and airports would be more expensive, more 

environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 
289 


Insert offset folio 256 here 81259.256

Letter to Congressman Denham 

May 28, 2013 

Page 2 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is proving 

to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, precisely the 

type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both geographically and 

economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer commutes, 

a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because instead of 

removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the opportunity 

to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for decades, if not a century 

and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

c?-e:r-~ 

Andreas Cluver 

Secretary Treasurer 

AC:op 

Opeiu:29/afl-cio 
290 


Insert offset folio 257 here 81259.257

RONil1IlJ.ER 

Executj;,l' Secretary 

May 28, 2013 

Los Angeles / Orange Counties 

Building and Construction 

Trades Council 

AfJ[liaud with the BuilrfillJ: & CIJIlslructilm l'rat!i!.' /)el't.,A FL~Cl() 

Honorable IeffDenham 

1730 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Denham: 

1616l?nJerlyBmllev.u:d 

Las .4.llge{(!!>, C,4 1){J()26-S7l'14 

Plume (13) -183-4222 

(7 [./) O'37-679J 

Fa..r.(2fS) 483-4419 

I am the Executive Secretary of the Los Angeles/Orange Counties .Building and Construction 

Trades Council, representing 140,000 skilled construction workers in 52 local affiliated unions in 

14 Trades. 

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to comment on california's High-Speed Rail project, an 

urgently needed i~provement to our transportation system that we are eager to begin building, 

OUf country is in a crisis of finding career opportunities for those who do not go to college. The 

Building Trades, through our projects, are providing an effective plan for these demands. Of the 

51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in· 

apprenticeships through the Building Trades. All our wor],ers are. exclusively employed by private 

construction companies that are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined, 

skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, building it once and doing it 

right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in Southern California still reaches 25 to 40 percent for 

many of our local unions. In the Central VaHey ofCaHfornia, it is even worse. We stand with our 

brothers and sisters in our commitment to start High-Speed RAil in the area where the need for jobs 

is greatest. 

This project has benefits that will reach every American in the future. It will provide a clean, 

efficient and badly needed third mode of mass transit. It will lead to a nationwide high'speed rail 

system to alleviate tbe gridlock at our airports1 congestion in our skies and total dependence on cars 

and interstate fi.-eeways to move our citizens, Our economy needs a more modern, efficient 

transportation system, our environment needs cleaner modes of transportatio14 and our workers 

need the hundreds of thousands of good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We 

strongly support getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

High-Speed RaiJ is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is the 

mode of choice along corridors with popUlation centers 100 to 500 miles apart, precisely the type 

of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. 

We can and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are prond to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project which will serve the public for many decades. 

Just as the Interstate High\vay system met the demands of its time, High-Speed Rail will serve us in 

the future. 

Since~~ 

Ron Miller 

Executive Secretary 
291 


Insert offset folio 258 here 81259.258

San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO 

May 23, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

San Diego's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on CaFfomia's High-Speed Rail 

project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we are eager to begin building. The 

BuUding Trades represents approximately 30,000 construction workers in the state of California. These workers are 

employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a 

streamlined hjghly~skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, building it once and doing 

it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is amDng the highest in the nation. This 

project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this 

state, but wilJ eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide high~speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at 

our airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens, This 

can be achieved and, at the same time, our ec-on-omy can be driven by thi:. public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment. and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of 

infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a mOre modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs cleaner modes of 

transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right 

n-ow. We strongly support getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and permanent, including 

a great many in the Central Valley. So leC s create those jobs and get to work no" .... 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. Califomia's tnlnsportation system is aiready 

overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. High- Speed Rail is the only viable means of 

making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and more 

freeways and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving 

millions more Californians up and down our state. 

High~Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is proving to be the 

mode of choice along corridors with popUlation centers J 00 to 500 miles apart, precisely the type of corridor that 

California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both geographically and economieaJiy, is practically designed 

for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer commutes, a poorer 

quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because instead of removing cars from the road, 

we wi1J be adding more, 

We can, and must do this now. San Diego Building Trades workers are proud to be given the opportunity to work on 

this infrastructure project that we believe win serve the public for decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the 

Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

Tom 

~ Lemmon 

Business Manager 

3737 Camino del Rio So. Suite 202, San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 521-2914 Fax (619) 521-2917 
292 


Insert offset folio 259 here 81259.259

(j3uififing and Construction rr'racfes Counci[ 

of 

STANISLAUS, MERCED, TUOLUMNE AND MARlPOSA COUNTIES 

P.O. Box 1890 MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 95353-1890 

TONY LEDOUX 

Pr<'=!Iidel.lt 

May 28, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham: 

PHONE (209) 527-6J05 FAX (209) 527-6104 

e-mail:bc-tradescouncil(iilsbcdobal.net 

BILLY POWELL FiJlancialSoorcl.1r)'nTreasurer 

The Construction and Building Trades workers of the Central Valley appreciate"this opportunity to comment on 

California's High-Speed Rail project. Our transportation system is urgently in need of this improvement and we are eager 

to begin building. The Building Tmdes represents 395,000 construction workers in the state ofCalifomia. Of the 51,000 

apprentices in the state ofCaIifomia's apprenticeship programs, 49~623 are in apprenticeships through the Building 

Trades. These workers are exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount offime, building 

it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest in the nation. This 

project will not only provide a clean) efficient and badly needed third mode of mass transit for the population bfthis state. 

but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide high~speed ran system that would al1eviate the gridlock at our 

airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be 

achieved and) at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the public and 

business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of infrastructure 

and construction jobs can. 

OUf economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system,. our environment needs cleaner modes of 

transportation, and our workers need the hundreds ofthous.ands of goodne,,," jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now, 

We strongly support getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the projectj hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and pennanetU. including a 

great mruty in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs and get to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. Cali[omia~s transportation system is already overtaxed 

and OUf population will reach 60 minion by mid-centur:Y. High- Speed RaUlS the only viable means of making sure our 

transportation infrastructure can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports 

would be more expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving minions more Califomians up 

and do'WTI our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is proving to be the mode of 

choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles aport, precisely the type of corridor that California's 

High-Speed Rail win serve. California, both geographically and economically~ is practically designed for High-Speed 

Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer conunutes) a poorer qua1ity of 

life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because instead of removing cars from the road. we will beadding l11.ore, 

We C~, and must do this now, California Building Trades workers. are proud to be given the opportunity to work on this 

infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for decades, if not a cenhlry and beyond, as have the Golden 

Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

~ 
293 


Insert offset folio 260 here 81259.260

:3Jnt£rnaiiunal 

3liledriraI 

'ililrutq£rqooo 

3IDIorken3 

May 28. 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

AFl-CIO 

Local Union No. 332 

212S CANOAS GARDEN AVENUE, SUITE 100 

SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95125 

Telephone: (408) 269-4332 

Fax: (408) 979-5500 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to cOlllmcnt on Culilixnia's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system thut we 

arc eager 10 begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in thc 

slate o/'Californiu. Of the 51.000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs. 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who arc awarded projct:ts by oflering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount or lime, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of Calilomia is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean. ellident and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population oflhis state, but will eventually lead. we helieve. to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviaw the gridlock at Ollr airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate tj'ceways to move our citizens. This ean be achieved 

amI. at tilt: same time, ollr economy can be driven by this public works project th,lt will servc the 

public and business, improve OLlr cnvironmcnt and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs 11 more modern, crticicnt transportation system, our environment necds 

cleaner modes or transportation. and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting lhis projcct moving 110W. 

and strongly oppose any tinther delays. 

Ovcr the lite oflhe project. hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created. both short-term unci 

permanent. including a grcat many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 
294 


Insert offset folio 261 here 81259.261

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure om transpOliation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more lUld more freeways and ailJlOrts would be more 

expensive. more environmcnhtlly damaging and less efficient tor moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rai I is proving tremendously successful around the \\iorJd. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with popUlation centers 100 to 500 miles apart. 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. Calif()rnia, both 

geographically and economiclllly, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail. we would thce a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes. a poorer qunlity orlile from ever greater traffic delays. and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars front the road. we will be adding more. 

We CUll, and Illllst do this now. Calilbrnia Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work 011 this inthlstmcture project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely. 

G~I!:·r)~ Business Manager/Financial Secretary 

mEW Local 332 
295 


Insert offset folio 262 here 81259.262

May 28, 2013 

i~til'!'m~dU(Q)~©l~ IamUllil'!'r~(Q)od (Q)f [[il'!'cltrk©l[ Wm'kil'!'rr"~ 

i,oe.:viff liJ!"Iim~ 340 

2840 EI Centro Road, Suite 115, Sacramento, CA 95833 

Phone (916) 927-IBEW 0 FAX (916) 927-1074 0 www.ibewlocat340.org 

<>"~~:1.6 

Deal' Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, all urgently needed improvement to our transportation system-that we 

axe cager to begin building, The Building Tmdes represents 395,000 eons!mctioll worke,-s in the 

state of Cali fa mia. Ofthe 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers arc 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for constmetion workers in the Centra! Valley of Califomia is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only pl'Ovide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit fOl' the popUlation of tIlls state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a tiationwide 

high-speed rail system that would "Ileviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and tot.1 dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, om economy call be drivcn by this public wOI-ks project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absohltely drive our economy as only the 

eC0110111in nUlltipHer Qfinfrasb:ucture find Gonstnlctionjobs call. 

Our economy needs a l.nore modern, efficient transportation system, our enVir0111TIent needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and 01.11' workers need the hundreds of tl1011sands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any fmtller delays. 

Over the life ofthe pmject, hundreds oflhousands of jobs wi!! be created, both short-term and 

permanent, inch!ding a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

\'Vork no\v. 

We simply can't afford not to start buHdhlg High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our popUlation wlll reach 60 million by mid-century, HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways. and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our stute. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously succe~sful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along con-idors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California'S High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed fo,- High-Speed RaiL 
296 


Insert offset folio 263 here 81259.263

Without High-Speed Rail, we would f.1ce a loss of economIc productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater trafflc delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will he adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dmp. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Robbie Hunter 

c::re~:&~-

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' UNION 

Local No. 340 

A. C. Steelman 

Business Manager 

State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 

dec 

opeiu@29 

afl-cio 
297 


Insert offset folio 264 here 81259.264

May 28,2013 

~1iII\t~n1©lth,l)IiII©J! Iamt~~[f~(\Ji(\Jid (\Jif IEI~d[fk©lij W(\Jilrk~r(';\) 

/LO(;(JJi Unuon 340 

2340 EI Centro Road, Suite 115, Sacramento, CA 95833 

Phone (916) 927·IBEW , FAX (916) 927·1074, www,ibewlocal34Q,org 

o~~2G 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

Califol'l1ia's Bullding Trades workel's avpree;,,!e this opportunity to comment OJ] Califomia's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transpOltation system'that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 eonstruetion workers in tlm 

state of California. Ofthe 51,000 apprentices in Ihe state of Cali fomi a's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in app,'cntieeships tluough the Building Trades. These workers al'e 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offedng 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the pl'Oject in the least 

amount of time, building it ollceand doing it right. 

Unemployment fOl' construction workers ill fhe Central Valley of CaHfomia is among the highest 

in the nation, This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of Ill!. state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a liatiol1wide 

high-speed mil systcm that would alleviate the gridlock at our airpOlts, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at tbe same time, om economy can be driv~n by this public works proj~ct that will serve tbe 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic mnftiplier ofinfrastmcture and cOllstructionjobs can. 

Our eC0110nlY needs a more modern;1 efficient transportation systenl, our envirODlnent needs 

cleaner modes of transpolialion, lind Ollr workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any fminer delays, 

Over the life of the proj eet, !Ji\lldreds of thousands of jobs wiIi be crealed, both short-term and 

pennanen!, including a great many in the Ccntral Valley. So lets crente those jobs and get!o 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our popUlation will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpecd Rail is the only viable means of making sure OUr transpmtatioll infrastructure call meet onr 

growing demand, Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expenSIve, more environmentally damaging and Jess efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state, 

High-Speed Rail is proving lremendollsly successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it IS 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 I'D 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of Cot rid or that California's High-Speed Rail will serve, California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 
298 


Insert offset folio 265 here 81259.265

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss ofecollomic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We c~n. and IUustdo this now. California Building Trades workers are Pl"011d to be given the 

0pPoltunity to work Oll this infrastmcture project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' UNION 

0.340 -7 ~ . // 

Robert Williams Jr2. -t'~rt.-:::.I.-"--------,,,ct/~):::;~'-~ 

Assistant Business Manager 

cc: Robbie Hunter 

Stale Building and Construction Trades Council of California 

dec 

opeiu@29 

aU·cio 
299 


Insert offset folio 266 here 81259.266

May 28, 2013 

~11lil:@m©lttTImll©l[ iBmil:Iil@lIlilood©f !E[@ibil:dib©l[ Work~lI;s 

tOf;f]Ji IIJnkm 340 

2B40 El Centro Road, Suite "115, Sacramento, CA 95B33 

Phone (916) 927·IBEW • FAX (916) 927·1074 • www.ibewlocaI340.org 

'~2S 

Deal' Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportllnity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to OUl' tr3JlSpOltation system" that we 

arc cageI' to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 eonstructio1l workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentiees in thesta!" of Calif ami a's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades, These workers are 

exclusively employed by private constmetion companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for cOllstmctiol1 workers in the Central ValJey of Cali fomi a is among the highest 

in the natton. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the popUlation ofthis state; but will evcntually lead, We believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed mil system that would alleviate thc gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on caTS and interstate freeways to move OUr citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the-sume time, our economy call be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and "bsolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic mUltiplier ofinfmslructure and constntclionjobs can. 

Our econOlny needs "" 1110re modern, efficient transportation systern,. our enVirODlTICnt needs 

cleaner modes of transjJortation, and our workers need ths hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting tbis project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further deJays. 

Over the life ofthe project, hundreds oflhollsands of jobs will bc created, both shOlt-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. SD lets create those jobs and get to 

work noW. 

We simply can't afford not to slart bnilding High-Speed Rail now. California's transportatiDI1 

system is already overtaxed and DUr pop"laliDll will reach 60 million by mid-century, HighSpeed Rail ;s the only viable means of making sure our transpOltation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Contin\ling to build more and more n:eeways and ahvorts would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Califol11ians up and down our slate. 

High-Speed Rail is pmving tremendously succelh"ful "round the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population "enters 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of eon-idOl' that California's High-S1Jeed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed RaiL 
300 


Insert offset folio 267 here 81259.267

Without High·Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffle delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars fi'om the road, we will be adding more, 

We can, and must do this HDW, California Building Trades workers an~ proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, ifnot a Cen(1lfY and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' UNION 

ocal No. 340 

O'Elman Clark 

Assistant Business Manager 

cc: Robbie Hunter 

State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 

dec 

opeiu@29 

aB-cio 
301 


Insert offset folio 268 here 81259.268

May 28, 2013 

~nltti!!m©l~]mllOl[ Iamitlhti!!rlh©©d ©1 lEiti!!ib:itrk©l[ W©rr!{®r~ 

L!JHC«JJ§ Unimll 340 

2340 EI Centro Road, Suite 115, Sacramento, CA 95833 

Phone (916) 92Y·IBEW 0 FAX (916) 9ZY·10Y4 0 www.ibewlocaI340.org 

<~~2.0 

Dea,' Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on "California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgenHy needed improvcment to our transpoltatioJl system' that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Tmdes repmscnts 395,000 constmction workers in the 

state of California. Onlle 51,000 apprentices ;n the state of Calif011lia's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the BuHdingTrades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amonnt of rime, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficicnt and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population oftbis slate, but wi!! eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same fime, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will scrve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier ofinfraslructure and constlUctionjohs can. 

Our economy needs a tnore modern, efficient 1fanspoliation systelll, our enyirQOlnent Jlceds 

cleaner modes or !ranspOJ1atiol1, and our workers lleed the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High·Speed Rail will bring right nDW. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any fmlher delays. 

Over the life of thc project, hundreds oHhotlsands of jobs will b" created, both shmt-tt:'nn and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create thosejobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's tmnsportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Roil is the only viable meallS of making sure Out' transl'Oltation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be morc 

expensive, mme environmentally damaging and less efficien! for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High·Speed Rail is proving tremendously succe~sful arounel the world. In Emupe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along conidors with pop11latioll centers 100 to 500 miles apan-, 

precisely the typc of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail wi!! serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High·Speed RaiL 
302 


Insert offset folio 269 here 81259.269

Without High-Speed Rail, we would facc a loss of economic productivity because oflonger 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will b" adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work 011 this infrastructure project tlmt we believe will serve tlle publie for 

decades, if 110t a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge Bnd the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' UNION 

~----. cott Steelman 

Assistant Business Manager 

cc: Robbie Hunter 

State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 

dec 

opeiu@29 

an·cio 
303 


Insert offset folio 270 here 81259.270

May 28,2013 

~l1ten1@U(llfl1©l1 Br(lltherhtOtOd (llf Electrk@[ WtOrker~ 

Local Union 340 

2840 El Centro Road, Suite 115, Sacramento, CA 95833 

Phone (916) 927-mEW 0 FAX (916) 927-1074, www.ibewlocal340.org 

~~~26 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to cOlUment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, all mgently needed improvement to OUl' transpo11ation system that we 

arc eager to begin bUilding. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in tl1e 

state of Cnlifomia. Of the 5 I ,000 apprentiees in the state of Califomia 's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships tln'ougll the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for constmction workers in the Central Valleyof'CaHfornia is among the highest 

in the Hallot>. This projecl will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population offhis state, bnt will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airpOlts, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependcncyon cars and interslateCfreeways to move our citizens. Tbis can be achieved 

and, at the same time, Ollr economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our ellvironment, and absolutely ddye our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastmcturc and construction jobs call. 

Our ecollonlY needs a tTIOl-e nlodern~ efficient trnl1spodation systenl, our environlnent needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and Ollf workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring righl now. We strongly support gettitlg this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays_ 

Over the life ofthe project, hundreds oflhousands of jobs will be created, both shOlt-tenll and 

pemlanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

\vork now, 

We simply can'l afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already oveltaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable tneans of 1113king sure our u*anspDliation infrastruchlrc can tHeet onr 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and morc fi'eeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Califomians lip and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles aparl, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practieally designed for High-Speed Rail. 
304 


Insert offset folio 271 here 81259.271

Without High-Speed Rail, we would fuee a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding morc. 

We can, and m~lst do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a cen(llry and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Robbie Hunter 

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' UNION 

Local No. 340 

/Y/~ Timothy J Wyatt 

Assistant Business Manager 

State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 

dec 

apeiu@29 

aU·cia 
305 


Insert offset folio 272 here 81259.272

International 

Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers LOCAL UNION No. 639 

6363 Edna Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (80S) 543-5693 

May 28, 2013 

Dear Congressman Deriham, 

Califurnia's Building Trades worke(s appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgeJltly needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount oftime, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment fur construction workers in the Central Valley ofCalifurnia is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructurc and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our enviromnent needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life ofthe project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-tenn and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't affurd not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of maldng sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and aITports would be more 

.~ .. 
306 


Insert offset folio 273 here 81259.273

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia; it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. Califurnia; both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed fur High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rai~ we would fuce a loss of economic productivity because oflonger 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do tms now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public fur 

decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

a~Q~ 

Mark D Simonin 

Business Manager 

IBEW Local Union 639 
307 


Insert offset folio 274 here 81259.274

Local Union 684 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD 

OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 

Serving Stanislaus, Merced, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties Since 1910 

[lear Congressman Denham: 

The Electrical Workers of ISEW local 684 appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's HighSpeed Rail project. Our transportation system is urgently io need of this improvement and we are eager 

to begin ottilding. The ISEW represents 40,000 coostruction workers In the state of California. These 

workers are exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by 

offering the lowest oid, using a streamlined highly·skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right_ 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of Califomia !s among the highest in the 

nation. This project win not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of mass transit 

for the population of this state, out will eventually lead, we belie...e, to a nationwide high-speed rail 

system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency 

on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved and, at the same time, our 

economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the public and ousiness, improve our 

environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of infrastructure and 

construction jobs can. 

We can pay for employment or we can pay for unemployment. Put Caltfornians back to work 

rebuilding the roads, bridges, and world-class infrastructure that make California a good place to do 

business. Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new jobs 

High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this pmject moving now, and strongly 

oppose any further delays. 

Over the life ofthe project, hundreds of thousands of joos will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs and get to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start buffding High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation system is 

already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. High- Speed Rail is the onlv 

viable means of making SUfe ourtransportation infrastructure can meet our growitlg demand. 

Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more expensive, more 

519 12th Street· Modesto, CA 95354 • Tel 1209) 524·5171, Fax (209) 52'1·9664 • www.ibewluG84,org 
308 


Insert offset folio 275 here 81259.275

environmentaUy damaging and less efficient for moving millions more Californians up and down our 

state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously $OC(essful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is proving to 

be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, precisely the type 

of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California. both geographically and economi<::ally. 

is praelically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer commutes. a 

poorer quality of life from eller greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because instead of removing 

cars from the road. we will be adding more. 

We tan, and must do this now. The eleelrical workers are proud to be given the opportunity to work on 

this infrastructure project that we believe wiU serve the public long into the future. 

Bobby Stutzman 

President Elect 
309 


Insert offset folio 276 here 81259.276

LOCAL UNION 

10300 Merritt Street 

Castroville, CA 95012 

www,ibew234,org 

NO. 234 

(800) 499-4239 

(831) 633-23IJ 

Fax (831) 633-0570 

The Electrician's Union for Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz County 

May 28, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's High-Speed Rail 

project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we are eager to begin building. The 

Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in 

the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. 

These workers are exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by 

offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project In the least amount 

of time, building it once, and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest in the nation. 

This project will not only provide a clean, eflicient, and badly needed third mode of mass transit for the 

population of this state, but will eventually lead, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the 

gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, and dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our 

citizens. This can be achieved and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project 

that will serve the public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs cleaner modes of 

transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring 

right now. I strongly support getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High·Speed Rail now. Califomia's transportation system is already 

overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. High- Speed Rail is the only viable means of 

making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and 

more freeways and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for 

moving millions more Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is proving to be the 

mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, precisely the type of corridor 

that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. Califomia, both geographically and economically, is practically 

designed for High·Speed Rail. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the opportunity to work 

on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public fur decades, if not a century and beyond, as 

have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

'\ 
310 


Insert offset folio 277 here 81259.277

Founded 1889 

UNITED ASSOCIATION of Journeymen and Apprentices of the 

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of 

the United States and Canada 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

Robert J. Lamb II Internanrmal RepresentatiJJf! 

California & Hawai'i 

Phoni'jFax: (714) 827-7859 

e-mai!:rohcrtl@uanet.org 

May 23, 2013 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that 

we are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers 

in the state of California Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction cOlnpanies who are awarded projects by 

offering the lowest bid, using a streamHned highly-skilled workforce, completing the project 

in the least amount oftime, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the 

highest in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed 

third mode of mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we 

believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our 

airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to 

move our citizens. This can be aehieved and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by 

this public works project that wi!! serve the public and business, improve our environment, 

and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of infrastructure and 

construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good 

new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project 

moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousand" of jobs will be created, both short-term 

and permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley, So lets create those jobs and get 

to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now, California's 

transportation system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 mi1!ion by midcentury, High- Speed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation 

infrastructnre can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways 

and airports would be more expensive, more enviromnentaHy damaging and less efficient for 

moving millions more Californians up and down our state. 

WilHam P. Hite 

General President 

Mark McManus 

Gcncml Sccn:tary-Trea;.,.urer 

Stephen E Kelly 

Assistant Gencrnl President 
311 


Insert offset folio 278 here 81259.278

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, 

it is proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 

miles apart, precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. 

California, both geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed 

Rail. I will use this rail for most trips from LA to the bay area and Sacramento. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because ofionger 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality 

because instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opporhmity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

William P. Hite 

General President 

Sincerely, 

Robert J. Lamb II 

United Association International Representative 

California and Hawai'i 

Mark McManus 

General Secretary·Treasurer 

Stephen F. Kelly 

Assistant General President 
312 


Insert offset folio 279 here 81259.279

Intemationa{ 

~rotfierfiood of 

f£CectricaC 

'Wor/@rs 

Local No. 952 3994 East Main Street, 

Ventura, Callfornit:l93003 

(805)642-2149 

(805)642-6104 

Fa< (805) 658-7507 

Reply to: 

P,O, Box 3908 

Ventura. California 93006 

Shane Werner 

Business Manager 

Jeffrey G, Bode 

Organizer 

.~,. 

Honorable Jeff Denbam 

US House of Representatives 

1730 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Denbam, 

May 28,2013 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on 

California's High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our 

transportation system that we are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 

395,000 construction workcrs in the state of California, Of the 51,000 apprentices in the 

state of California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the 

Building Trades, These workers are exclusively employed by private construction 

companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined 

highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, building it 

once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the 

highest in the nation, This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly 

needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, 

we believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our 

I airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cal'S and interstate freeways to 

move our citizens, This can be achieved and, at the same time, our economy can be 

driven by this public works project that will serve the public and business, improve our 

environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of 

infrastructure and construction jobs can, 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system~ our environment 

needs cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands 

of good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now, We strongly support getting this 

project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays, 

Over the life oftlle project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term 

and permanent, induding a great many in the Central Valley, So let's create those jobs 

and get to work now. 

-over-
313 


Insert offset folio 280 here 81259.280

We simply cannot afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 rrriles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

WithoLlt High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. Califorrria Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Darn. 

Sincerely, 

Shane Werner 

Business Manager I Financial Secretary 
314 


Insert offset folio 281 here 81259.281

May 23, 2013 

B.A.C. LOCAL.No. 3, (:ALIFORNIA 

Bricklayersand Allie<iCniftW(}rkers 

AFl.~CIO ....•. 

. 1?806Bigge St;< . 

Sim Leandro; CA ·94577· 

Phone: (510) 632~878i 

Facsimile: (510)632-8261 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's High-Speed 

Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we are eager to begin 

building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the State of California. Of the 

51,000 apprentices in the state of Cali fomi a's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships 

through the Building Trades. These workers are exclusively employed by private construction companies 

who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, 

completing the project in the least amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for consttuction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest in the 

nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of mass transit 

for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, toa nationwide high-speed rail 

system that would alleviate the gridlock of our airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on 

cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved and, at the same time, our 

economy can be driven by this public works project that wil! serve the public and business, improve our 

environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of infrastructure and 

construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs cleaner 

modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new jobs High-Speed 

Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any 

further delays. 

Over the life ofthe project, hundreds ofthousands of jobs will be created, both short-termed and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lees create those jobs and get to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation system is 

already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. High-Speed Rail is the only 

viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet out growing demand. Continuing 

to build more and more freeways and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally damaging 

and less efficient for moving millions more Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is proving 

to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, precisely the 

type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both geographically and 

economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Bricklayers - Tile Layers and Tile Finishers. Slone Masons' Marble Masons. Marble Finishers and Shopworkers 

MarbldMetal Riftnishers - Marble Restoration Workers - Pointers-Cleaners-Caulkers 

Terrazzo Workers - Terrazzo Finishers 
315 


Insert offset folio 282 here 81259.282

RA.C. LOCAL No;3,C;ALlFORNIA 

BricklaY<;rSand ·Allied CrafuVorkers . AFL~CIO . 

i()806 BiggeSt. San Leandf(),.CA94577 

Phone: (?1O) 632-8781 

Facsithlle:(SiO) 632-8261 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because oflonger commutes, a 

poorer quality of life from greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because instead of removing cars 

from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the opportunity 

to work on this infrastructure that we believe will serve the public for decades, if not a century and 

beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

F7Zlf 

!'OJ~OO President cr 

BAC3 CA 

Bricklayers" Tile Layers and Tile Finishers .. Stone Masons .. Marble Masons .. Marble Finishers ami Shopworkers 

Marble/Metal Refini,hers" Marble Restoration Workers" Pointers-Cleaners-Caulkers 

Terrazzo Workers .. Terrazzo Finishers 
316 


Insert offset folio 283 here 81259.283

May 23, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

california's Building Trades workers appreclate this opportunity to comment on california's High-Speed Rail project, 

an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we are eager to begin building. The .Building 

Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the state of California, Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of 

california's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exdusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a 

streamlined highly~skll!ed workforce, completing the project in the least amount of timet building it once and doing it 

right. 

Unemployment For construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest in the nation. This 

project will not only provide a clean, efficient -und badly needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this 

state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide high~speed rail system that would alleviate the grid!ock at 

our airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars "and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This 

can be achieved and, at the same timer our economy can be driven by this public 'WOrks project that wlll serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of 

Infrastructure and constructlon jobs C21n. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs -deaner modes of 

transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good ne'IN jobs High~Speed Rail wlU bring right 

now. We strongly support getting this project movIng now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both shorHerm and permanent, including 

a great many in the Central VaHey. So let's create those jobs and get to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building HIgh-Speed Rail now. California's transpoltation system is already 

overtaxed and our population wi!! reach 60 mimon by mid~century. High~ Speed Rail is the only viable means of 

making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our growIng demand. Continuing to build more and more 

freeways and aIrports would be more expenSive, more environmentally damaging and less effICient for mOYing 

millions 'more Californians up and down our state. 

HighkSpeed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is proYing to be the 

mode 'Of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart. precisely the type of corridor that 

Callfornia's High~Speed Rail will serve. California, both geographically and economicaHYl is practically designed for 

Hjgh~Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a foss of economic productivity because of longer commutes, a poorer 

quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because instead of removing cars from the road, 

we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the opportunity to work on 

this infrastructure project that we believe wi!! serve the public for decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the 

Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

since.,ely:tf :i,;Jt1 "}"I ,. R ' J £-, , ' 

Michael R, Height c1 

Apprenticeship Coordinator 
317 


Insert offset folio 284 here 81259.284

May2S,20B 

0Inilerl 0InioIl O/7?Oo/~Z'S 

loJalerprocfors and !JIlted 7J;}orhrs 

Local Union No. 36 

Dear Congressman Denham. 

Phone: (323) 222·0251 

Fax: (323) 222.:3585 

California's Building Trades wo~kers appreciate this opportunity to comment on Califurnia's 

Higll-Speed Rail project, an mgently needed improvement to our transportation system iliat we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 collstmction workers in the 

state ofCalifumia. Of the 51,000 apprentices in tile state of California's apPlenticesbip 

programs, 49.623 are ill apprellticesbips through the Bllilding Trades. TIlese workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction (:Ompanies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlilled bighly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construetion workers in.llle Central Valley ofCalifomia is among the highest 

in the nalion. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

IllllS& trausit fur the population oftllis state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed mil system that wonld alleviate the gtidlock at our airports, COIlgcstion in our skies, 

and lOIal dependency on cats and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by tbis public works project tllat will serve the 

public and business, improve our environtnent, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier ofinfiastructnre and constmctionjobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation. and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail wiU bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of tile project. blutdredS ofthousands of jobs will be created, both short-teon and 

pemmnent, ineluding a great many ill tile Central Valley. So lets create those jobs alld get to 

workllOw. 

We simply can't afford IlOtto start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and onr population will reach 60 million by mid-centwy. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportatioll illfrastrncltue can meet our 

growing demand. Continning to build mOl-e and more fi'eeways and airports would be more 

5380 Poplar Boulevard· Los Angeles, CA 90032 
318 


Insert offset folio 285 here 81259.285

expensive, more environmentally domaging and less efficient fur moving millions morc 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful arowld the world. In Europe aud Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along coaidors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California'S High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is pr8cticallydesigned for Higll-Spced Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportmuty to work on this infrastructure project that we believe ,viII serve the public fur 

decades, unot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely. 

ClifISmith 

Business Manager 
319 


Insert offset folio 286 here 81259.286

sulators and Allied Workers L 

oC!tOst \n AFL-CIO AND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OCce] ~ • .1 ): '/'J11f11HE TAADESD Ull; ... :p-o. ffllJA,tD 'EPAI'liMEN .o'l:l Jb 6\ v A .. r ~rt 

~e W, 0"0 

3801 PARK ROAD 

BENICIA, CA 94510 

May 23,2013 

Re: California High Speed Rail Project 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

(707) 748-1616 

FAX (707) 748-1620 

www.insu!ators16-wica.com 

California Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity cornment on 

California's high speed rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our 

transportation system that we are eager to begin building. The Building Trades 

represent 395,000 construction workers in the State of California, Of the 51,000 

apprentices in the State of California Apprenticeship Programs, 49,623 are 

apprenticeships through the Building Trades. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is 

among the Highest in the Nation. Our economy can be driven by this public 

works project that will serve the public and business, improve the environment, 

and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of 

infrastructure and construction jobs can. Our economy needs a more modern, 

efficient transportation system, our environment needs cleaner modes of 

transportation, and our workers need the hundreds and thousands of good new 

jobs high speed rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project 

moving now, and oppose any further delays_ 

Respectfully, 

;} 

U?4~~. , (/:f/) 

Chris Greaney 

Business Representative 
320 


Insert offset folio 287 here 81259.287

Kern, Inyo, & Mono Counties ofCalifixnia AI·;'L-CIO 

\IIay 28, 2013 

Deal' Congressman Denham, 

Calitornia's Building Trades workers appreciate this opp0l1unity to comment on Califbrnia's 

High-Speed Raj! project, an urgently needed improvement to (lur transportation system that we 

arc eager to begin building. The Building Trades rcpre.~ents J95,O()O construction workers in the 

'lale o[,California, Of the 5 LOOO apprentices in the stale of California's apprenticeship 

rrognHns, 49,623 are in apprenticeships Ihmug]) the Huild,,,!; Trades. These workers are 

exclusivelY employed by private construction companics who Hi'C awarded projects by offering 

the lowest hid, using a streamlined highly-skilled w~)rkf(}ree, completing the project in the ]east 

arnount or tlnlc~ building it once und doing it right. 

Cnen1ployment f{)f constru.ction workers in the Central VaHey ofCatifornia is am.ong the highest 

in the nalion. This project will not unly provide a clean, eHickn! and badly needed third mode of 

rnas:}. transit '"()r the population oft.his state.,. but v,dU eventually lead.. "\ve believe.., to a natioH\vlde 

high-s.pr:cu rail :-;YStCHl that would alleviate the gridlock at OHr airport$~ cong~tion in our $kics.~ 

and to\al dependency 'On cars and interstate- freeways to \l10Ve our citi:?ens. 111l-s. can be ;)chicved 

<.md, at the same titHe~ our cconotny can he driven by this public \,yorks project that \vill serve the 

pubric and busincss~ hnprovc Out' envir(}nmcnt~ and uhS{)lutciy drive our eC0110nlY as only the 

econoHlic mUltipHer of infrastructure and constructinn jobs cal1~ 

Our econ001Y ncc<.ki a n10rc lnodcrn~ efficient transpt,wtation syslenl~ our environment needs 

deaner nIndes of tran:sport.ati()n~ and our worker::; need tnC? hundreds Qf thousands of good new 

job:; High-Speed Rail ~viH hring right now. \Ve strongly support getting this proJect ITIoving, no\v~ 

anu strongly oppose any thrtller delays. 

Over the life of the pr~jcct, hundreds of thousands of,iobs will be created, both short-IeI'm and 

permanent. jnt:iuding u g.reat tunny in the Central VaHcy. So kt~ create thn.sc jobs and get to 

work now, 

\V\; sinlpJy c.an~t afH::rrd not to st.art building High-Speed Rail no'\v. Caiifornia~s tran...;;.portadon 

sy~kl11 is a~rcudy nvel-t~xed and nur population will reach 60 Hl1Hlon by mlc1-ccntury. HighSpeed Rail IS the only viahle means -of making sure OUr transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing dctnand. Continuing to builJ more and nlorc fn.!c\.vays and airports '\'!lould be rnorc 

cxpcn,.:;.ivc. more enviroHl'ncntaliy datnaging and Jess efficient for t110ving nliHions more 

Cali f(}rnian::: up nnd dO\.\iil nul' f;tate. 

J()!l:"l Sl'.\L'!,!)INt; 

F)(E(·t!rtv~: s\,~nrf.T,W.'JI 

661"323·7%70n',eE 

Md-327-R379 FAX 

24W \-VI'S!. Jl' .. Fr·Rl~\' SrNEC; 

HAKERSFtE.LD, CA),IFORN1· ... ~n3U5";!4J4 
321 


Insert offset folio 288 here 81259.288

High-Speed Rail i, proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to SOO miles apart. 

precisely the type of corridor that Calitln'nia's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and ecollomically. is practically designed for High-Speed RaiL 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would taee a loss of economic productivity because oflonger 

comnllltes. a poorer quulity of life from ever greater traftie delays, and pOOfer air quality because 

instead of removing cal'S Irom the road, we will be adding more. 

We can. and must do this now. Calitixnia Building Trades workers are proud to bc given the 

opportunity to work on this irJtl'astructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 
322 


Insert offset folio 289 here 81259.289

Building and Construction Trades Council 

of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties 

May 23, 2013 

840 E Street, Suite 3, Eureka, California 95501 

Telephone: (707) 599-0899 

bctchdn@gmail.com 

Congressman Jeff Denham 

4701 Sisk Road, Suite 202 

Modesto, CA 95356 

Phone: (209) 579-5458 

Fax: (209) 579-5028 

Regarding: California High Speed Rail Project Hearing, May 28, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

Please consider our letter of support tor the construction ofthe High Speed Rail Project. 

Many of our area construction workers have had to leave the area in search of low paying jobs. The 

recession has really hurt the construction industry. Our member trade unions have not given up hope, 

but have continued to invest most of our resources into high quality apprenticeship and journeyman 

training programs to prepare for rebuilding California'S aging infrastructure. We sponsor "Helmets to 

Hard Hats" and "Veterans in Piping (VIP)" programs to place returning Middle East vets into our 

workforce. This is only successful if we have job opportunities. 

The benefits of this project are too numerous to list in this brief letter, but key on tremendous 

advantages to future growth of California's business, environmental enhancement, job creation, and 

added tax base by putting hundreds of thousands of workers to work for generations to come. 

It is a wise investment into California's future. 

King Ludwig of Bavaria was criticized and mocked by investing into a castle in the 

mountains, and decades after his death, it became the model for the Disneyland Castle. It provides 

worldwide tourism income for Gennany forever. The High Speed Rail Project is monumental, but 

provides that sense of vision, but with real economic growth. 

It is a win - win for the Valley, For California, and the Nation. 

Please consider our strong support for this prqject. 

Sincerely, 

Sid Berg, Financial Secretary I Treasurer 

cc: 

Congressman Jared Huffinan 
323 


Insert offset folio 290 here 81259.290

Santa Clara & San Benito Counties 

Il1lU"UULUl;;:. & Construction Trades Council 

2102 Almaden Iload Su.ite 101, San Jf)Se. CA 95125~2190 . Phone 40B.265.7643 . Fax. 408.265.2080 

Neil M. StrUthers 

ChiefExecutiveOlllcer May 28, 2013 

]asllcGan:ia 

Depmy Execudve Officer 

Robert Baldioi 

Presidct1( 

Asbesros Workers 16 

Boilermakers 549 

Brick&Ti!e3 

Northern Caljfornia 

Carpl!'nrers Regional Council 

Carpenters 405 

Carper & Linoleum 12 

CemeTH Mru;ons 400 

Drywa!lbthers 9144 

Elecrridans332 

Elevator Constructors 8 

GJa:ders 1621 

Iron Workers 377 

Labon~rs 270 

Laborers 67 

MilImcn262 

Millwrights t02 

Operating Engin~r5 3 

Painters Disrrier Councll16 

Painters 507 

Plasterers 300 

Plumbers & Srcamfim:rs 393 

Roofers & Waterproofers 95 

Sheet Metal Workers 104 

Sign, Dispby 5lG 

Sprinkler Fitters 483 

TeamsrcnZS7 

Affiliateciwith: 

State Building :md 

COf),Hrucdon Tnidc$ 

CotUlclJ oj' California 

CalifontiaLabor 

Federation, AFL-CIO 

California Labor CO.P.E, 

Sou-th nay AFL-CiO 

Labor Council 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system 

that we are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction 

workers in the state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's 

apprenticeship prograrns, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. 

These workers are exclusively employed by private construction companies who are 

awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, 

completing the project in the least amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the 

highest in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed 

third mode of rnass transit for the popUlation of this state, but will eventually lead, we 

believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would reduce congestion in our 

airports, lessen our dependency on cars, and ease the gridlock on interstate freeways to 

move our citizens. This can be achieved and, at the same time, our economy can be 

driven by this public works project that will serve the public and business, improve our 

environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of 

infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. Califomia's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can 

meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would 

be more expensive, more environmentaHy damaging and less efficient for moving miHions 

more Californians up and down our state. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality 

because instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given 

the opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the GoJden Gate Bridge and the Hoover 

Dam. 

www.scbtc.org 
324 


Insert offset folio 291 here 81259.291

FoWlded 1889 

Letters should 

b~ confined to 

one-subjcct 

UNITED ASSOCIATION 

ofJoumeymen and Apprentice., ofthe. 

Plll.mbingwd Pipe Fining Indusny of 

the Unircd SruIC$ ami Canada Bob Jennings 

B\\,'!incssManager/ 

fi;t!and.ISecre~ry,Treasurer 

UA Local Union: #246 1303 N, Rabt" Ave,. #101 • Fresno, CA 93727 

(559) 252-7246 • F" (559) 252·1766 

Subject: 

May 28,2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

William P. Hire 

GmCl'rrJl'rem{mt 

PatrickR Perno 

Tom Avila G~mmi S."ntnry"Trmmrr;, 

Stephen F. Kclly 

Ji»;i!'t4"tGclleJ'f/tf'T"uiifm' 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail prqject, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount oftime, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but win eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies,. 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, OUr economy can be driven by this public works prqject that will serve the 

public and business,. improve our environmen~ and ahsolute1y drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands {lfjobs will be created, both short-tenn and 

pcrnlanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

'WOrk now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century> HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

gro",ing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports woultl be more 
325 


Insert offset folio 292 here 81259.292

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed RaiL 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing CarS from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

~:f Business Manager V.A. Local 246 
326 


Insert offset folio 293 here 81259.293

@@m 

SPRlNKL{;R .r:ITT{;~ May 28,2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

John D. Bodine, Sr. Busines.'> Manager 

Shawn Broadrick James E. Tucker 

Financial S~ul!!ary·Trc;'l$urer Prcsicient-Organ!r.e! 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on 

California's High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation 

system that we are eager to begin building, The Building Trades represents 395,000 

construction workers in the state of Califurnia. Of tlle 51,000 apprentices in the state of 

California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building 

Trades, These workers are exclusively employed by private construction companies who are 

awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, 

completing the project in the least amount of tllne, building it on= and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among 

the highest in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly 

needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, 

we believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our 

airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to 

move our citizens. This can be achieved and, at the same rinle, our economy can be driven 

by this public works project that will serve tile public and business, improve our 

environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of 

infrastructure and construction jobs can, 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our 

environment needs cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of 

thousands of good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support 

getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both shortterm and permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs 

and get to work now, 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's 

transportation system is already overtaxed and OUT population will reach 60 million by midcentury. High- Speed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation 

infrastructure can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways 

and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient 

for moving millions more Californians up and down our state. 

Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 

70S0 Oakland Mills Road' Suite zoo' Columbia, Maryland 2(046 

(410) 381-4300' fax: (301) 621·8045 ·www.sprlnklerfiners669.org 
327 


Insert offset folio 294 here 81259.294

SPRlNKLbR 

@~m P1Tb~ 

High-Speed Rail is provillg tremendously successful around the world. In Europe 

and Asia, it is proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers lOO 

to 500 miles apart, precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will 

serve. California, both geographically and economically, is practically designed for HighSpeed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of 

longer commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air 

quality because instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be 

given the opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will setVe the 

public for decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the 

Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

n\Ol) ~ S)( V Jolm D. Bodine 

Business Manager 

LU669 

Kevin G. Watson 

Business Agent 

Central California, LU 669 

Dale H. O'Dell 

Business Agent 

Southern California, LU 669 

Charles Frame 

Business Agent 

Northern California, LU 669 
328 


Insert offset folio 295 here 81259.295

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 378 

UNION OFFICE OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING 

Rohert J. Lux President 

Susiness Agent 

left MeEuen Business Maneger 

Financial SecretaryTfeaslJler 

Jason Gallia Business Agent 

P. (707) 746-6100 I F. (707) 746-0979 

May 23, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers would like this opportunity to support the 

California's High-Speed Rail project and needed improvement to our 

transportation system. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction 

workers in the state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of 

California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the 

Building Trades. These workers are exclusively employed by private construction 

companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a highlyskilled workforce, completing the project safe, on time and under budget and drug 

free. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is 

among the highest in the nation. This project will provide clean, efficient third 

mode of mass transit [or the people of the state, but will eventually lead to a 

nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate congestion in our skies and 

dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our people. This can be done 

and our economy can be driven by this public works project that wi!! serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and drive our economy. 

Our economy needs a more modem transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner transportation, and our workers need many good new jobs High-Speed 

Rail will bring right noW. We strongly support getting this project moving and 

strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life ofthe project many will be created, both short-term and permanent 

including many in the Central Valley. So let's start. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's 

population will reach 60 million by mid-century_ High- Speed Rail is the best way 

of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our growing demand. 

Building more freeways would be more environmentally damaging. 
329 


Insert offset folio 296 here 81259.296

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 378 

UNION OFFICE OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING 

Robart J. lux Presidant 

Business Agent 

Jett McEuen 8usiness Manager 

Financial SecretaryTreasurer 

Jason Salll. Bus.iness Agent 

p, (707) 746·6100 I F. (707) 746·0979 

High-Speed Rail is proving to be the transportation of choice along corridors with 

population centers 100 to 500 miles apart California is geographically and 

economically great for High-Speed Rail. California Building Trades workers are 

ready to start working on this proj ect. Proud to be given the opportunity to work 

on the greatest proj eet in the world. 

Sincerely, 

lit 

J on Gallia 

Busirless Agent 

Iron Workers Local 378 
330 


Insert offset folio 297 here 81259.297

INT£RNATIONAL ASSOCI.'\TION 

OF SHEET METAL, 

AIR, RAIL AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

WORKERS 

May 28, 2013 

Congressman Jeff Denham 

10th Congressional District of California 

4701 Sisk Road, Suite 202 

Modesto, CA 95356 

Dear Congressman Denham~ 

Bruce Word 

PRESIDENT/BUSiNF.SS MANAGER 

SHEET METAL WORKERS' 

LoCAL UNION No.1 04 

2610 CROW CANYON, STE. 300 

SAN RAMON, CALlFORNL~ 9458:3-1547 

TEL! (92,) 31,..8600 • FAX: (92,) 314-8620 

The California BuHding Trades workers welcome this chance to comment on the High-Speed Rail project. It is a 

critically needed improvement that we are ready to begin building. 

The California Building Trades represents 395,000 constmction workers. And, of the 51,000 appTonticcs in 

CaHfornia~s apprenticeship programs, 49,623. are in apprenticeships thr<mgh the Building Trades. These workers 

are exclusively employed by private construction companies who arc awarded projects by submitting the lowest b-id 

and utilizing a highly~skiBed workforce and completing projects on time~ doing it once, and doing it right. 

lJnemployment for construction workers in tbe Central VaHey ofCalifoITlla is among the highest in the nation. This 

project will not only provide a dean. efficient and. urgently needed third mode of mass transit for California, but 

could eventually lead. to a nationwide hjgh~speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports. 

congestion in our skies. and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways. This can be achiev~ and at the same 

time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the public and business, improve our 

environment~ and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of infrastmcture and constnlctiQfl 

jobs can. 

California ~s: economy desperately needs a more modem~ efficient transportation system. Our environment needs 

cleane~ modes of t.ansportation. Our workers need the hundrcds of thousands of good new jobs High~Spced Rail 

will bring right now. Therefore, we fiercely support this pre.jec! getting ~ta.rted immediately, 

Spanning the Hfe of tile project, hundreds of thousands of short-tenn and pennanent jobs wHI be created throughout 

the state. Many of those jobs will be in the Central Valley. 

Calitornia just c,umot afford to- nat begin constructIon on the High-Speed Rail now. Cahfonlia~s transportation 

system is already overburdened and with California's population reaching 60 million by the middle of the centUlY, 

the High-Speed Rail is the one viable means to ensure Ollf transportation infmstructure is able to meet the growing 

necessity. Trying to deal with it by constructing more freeways and more airports would Hot only be more costly, 

it would also cause further damage to our environment 

High-Speed Rail systems have a!.ready proven to be tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, 

it has proven itself to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, and 

this is exactly the type of conidor that California's High-Speed Rail wi!! serve. 
331 


Insert offset folio 298 here 81259.298

Congressman Jeff Denham 

Page Two 

May 28, 2013 

Should the High-Speed Rail project fail to come to fruition, most assuredly, California will be looking at a loss of 

economic productivity created by a longer commute. Traffic delays will increase. Stress levels will be challenged, 

increasing the likelihood of both pbysical and emotional health issues. And the quality of our environment will 

continue to be compromised. 

We believe this infrastructure project will elTeetively serve Californians for decades, if not for a century or longer. 

To have the opportunity to work on a project of this magnitUde is something California Building Tmdes workers 

are honored to be given. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Word 

PresidentIBusiness Manager 

jm:opciu #3 
332 


Insert offset folio 299 here 81259.299

May 28, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

State of California. Ofthe 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this State, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our ~onomy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds oftllOusands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 
333 


Insert offset folio 300 here 81259.300

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

James P. Barcelos 

State of California Certified Journeyman Electrician 
334 


Insert offset folio 301 here 81259.301

May 28, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Ofthe 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less effieient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 
335 


Insert offset folio 302 here 81259.302

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead 0 f removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Darn. 

Sincerely, 

Peter Halver 

Modesto &Stockton Branch Manager 

Northern California Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association 
336 


Insert offset folio 303 here 81259.303

May 22, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

JAMES J. CONWAY 

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY CONSUlTING 

P.O. BOX 1100 

DANVILLE, CA 94526 

Email;jjconway@pacbell.net 

phone (415)517-7214 

c/o California High Speed Rail Authority 

RE: Support High Speed Rail 

Dear Congressman Denham: 

High Speed Rail may be the Central Valley's most vibrant vehicle for economic development. 

California's residents and visitors deserve additional green transportation options, to alleviate pressure 

on congested roads and over-crowded airports. High Speed Rail clearly fits the bill. 

Not only will this project create much needed jobs for construction workers and contractors, the ripple 

effects of economic reinvestment in local communities will be realized for decades. Service and support 

industries will thrive in an enduring economic boost. 

Bold ideas require bold actions. Please support the immediate development and funding of the High 

Speed Rail project. 

Sincerely, 

James J. Conway 
337 


Insert offset folio 304 here 81259.304

Don M, Savory 

Business Manager 

Financial Secretary 

Treasurer 

May2S, 2013 

The International A~'sociation of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

Affiliated with AFL-ClO 

5407 East Olive Avenue, Suite 16 - Fresno - California - 93727 

(559) 251 7388 - Fax (559) 251 7729 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 

49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are exclusively 

employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, 

using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, 

building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 
338 


Insert offset folio 305 here 81259.305

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because oflonger 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead ofremoving cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe wiB serve the public for 

decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Our forefathers in this state and our COlilltry were the visionary's that put in place the freeways, 

bridges, railroads and dams that we rely on today. We owe our future generations the same 

considerations. 

Sincerely, 

Don M. Savory 

Business Manager, F.S.T. 

OMS/sip 

ope29/aflcio 
339 


Insert offset folio 306 here 81259.306

Dolt M. Savory 

Business Manager 

financial Secretary 

Treasurer 

May 28, 2013 

The International Association of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

Affiliated with AFL-elO 

5407 East Olive Avenue, Suite 16 _ Fresno _ California _ 93727 

(559) 251 7388 _ Fax (559) 251 7729 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 

49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are exclusively 

employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, 

using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, 

building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the popUlation ofthis state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds ofthousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 
340 


Insert offset folio 307 here 81259.307

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed RaiL 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Our forefathers in this state and our country were the visionary's that put in place the freeways, 

bridges, railroads and dams that we rely on today. We owe our future generations the same 

considerations. 

Sincerely, 

Ernie Wiens 

Vice President 

EW/slp 

ope29/aflcio 
341 


Insert offset folio 308 here 81259.308

Don M. Savory 

Business Manager 

Financial Secretary 

Treasurer 

May 28,2013 

The International Association of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

Affiliated with AFL-CIO 

5407 East Olive Avenue, Suite 16 • Fresno. California. 93727 

(559) 251 7388 • Fax (559) 2517729 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 

49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are exclusively 

employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, 

using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, 

building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation .. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California'S transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by rnid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving rnillions more 

Californians up and down our state. 
342 


Insert offset folio 309 here 81259.309

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along conidors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of conidor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity bccause of longer 

conunutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead ofremoving cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Our forefathers in this state and our country were the visionary's that put in place the freeways, 

bridges, railroads and dams that we rely on today. We owe our future generations the same 

considerations. 

Sincerely, 

Jason Henson 

President 

JHJslp 

ope29/aflcio 
343 


Insert offset folio 310 here 81259.310

Don M. Sav()~y 

Business Manager 

Financial Secretary 

Treasurer 

May 28, 2013 

The International Association of Bridge, Structural, 

Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 155 

Affdiated with AFL-CIO 

5407 East Olive Avenue, Suite 16 - Fresno - California - 93727 

(559) 251 7388 • Fax (559) 251 7729 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 

49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are exclusively 

employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, 

using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, 

building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gIidlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multipJier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a morc modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient tor moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 
344 


Insert offset folio 311 here 81259.311

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choi'ce along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Goldcn Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam, 

Our forefathers in this state and aUf country were the visionary's that put in place the freeways, 

bridges, railroads and dams that we rely on today. We owe our future generations the same 

considerations. 

Sincerely, 

Luis Gonzalez 

Business Agent 

LG/sJp 

ope29/aflcio 
345 


Insert offset folio 312 here 81259.312

BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS 

LOCAL NO. 4 

.~-

SERVING CALIFORNIA 

(626) 573-0032 • TOLL FREE 1-800972-3338' FAX (626) 573-5607 

May 23, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment (}n California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 constructi(}n workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51 ,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs,49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded pmjec\s by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount oftime, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley, So lets create those jobs and get to 

workllow. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century, HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

gmwing demand, Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

12921 Ramona Boulevard, Suite F • Irwindale, CA 91706 
346 


Insert offset folio 313 here 81259.313

BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS 

LOCAL NO. 4 

...... ~ 

SERVING CALIFORNIA 

(626) 573-0032' TOLL FREE 1-800972-3338' FAX (626) 573-5607 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with popu!ationcenters lOa to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed RaiL 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because oflonger 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud 10 be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Darn. 

Sincerely, 

President/Secretary-

£~ Treasurer 

BAC Local 4 

12921 Ramona Boulevard, Suite F • Irwindale, CA 91 706 
347 


Insert offset folio 314 here 81259.314

I SEW LOCAL UNION 477 

May 23, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this OPPOltunityto comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager 10 begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 conslmction workers in the 

state of California. Ofthe 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

progrmns, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment fOT conslmction workers in the Central Valley of California is illllong the highest 

in the nation. TIris project ,,-ill not only provide a deao, efficient aod badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies:, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move om' citizens. This can be achieved 

and~ at the same time, our econ(Jmy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

p1.1blic and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

",-.d strongly oppose aoy further delays. 

Over tho life of the project, hundreds ofthou.sands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

pennanem, including a great many in the Central Valley, So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

W. simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's traosportation 

system is already overtaxed and OUT popUlation mll reach 60 million by rnid-cenhrry. HighSpeed Ran is the only viable means ofmWcing sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions mote 

~alifomians up and down OUT state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successfhl around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors mth popUlation centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF 

ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS 

la55 s, allsiness Omter Dri-.re 

San Bernardino, CA 92408 

(909) 890·0607 

(909) 890-0659 Fox 

JOHN A BROWN 

BusifffiSS Moooger!Fim:mcicl &lcmfory 

KENNY C. FELTS 

i'resroollt 
348 


Insert offset folio 315 here 81259.315

'SEW LOCAL UNION 477 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve, California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed RaiL 

Without I1igh-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commlltes) a poorer quality oftife from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road) we will be adding more, 

We can, and must do this now, California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decr:.des, ifnot a century llild beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, L ~::wn BusIness ManagerlFinancial Secretary 

mEW Local 477 

INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF 

ElECTRICAL 

WORKERS 

W55 S. Btlsiness Cooler DfiV'~ 

Son Bemardino, CA 92408 

(909} 890-0607 

(909) 89(}.0659 Fo)( 

)OHNABROWN 

Business Manager/Financier Secreklly 

KENNYC FElTS 

Prosidanf 
349 


Insert offset folio 316 here 81259.316

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS 

APPRENTICE TRAINING AND EDUCATION TRUST FUND 

NCTAT& ETF • P.O. 80x 14Q4 • Rancho Murieta. CA 95683» 14738 Cantova Way 

Phone: (916) 354·2122' Fax: (916) 354·2234' www.NCTAT.ORG 

May2S,2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

NQR'l'RERN 

~ CALIFOMt.A 

TEAMSTERS 

AP{lREf,ltlCB TRllNIKG 

~ 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California'S apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our air:ports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, cfficicnt transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportatio~ and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our popUlation ",ill reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 
350 


Insert offset folio 317 here 81259.317

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS 

APPRENTICE TRAINING AND EDUCATION TRUST FUND 

NCTAT& ETF • P.O. Box 1404· Rancho Murieta, CA95683' 14738 Canto,," Way 

Phone: (916) 354-2122' Fax: (916) 354-2234· www.NCTAT.ORG 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because oflonger 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever. greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. Califomia Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

S~R.~ Phillip Winters 

Executive Director 
351 


Insert offset folio 318 here 81259.318

I nternationa{ 

rBrotfierfiooa of 

r£fectrica[ 

Wor,ws 

Local Union 441 

309 N. Rampart Street 

SuiteM 

Orange, CA 92866·1855 

(714) 939·3131 

(714) 939·3132 FAX 

www.ibewDc.com 

Douglas M. Chappell 

Business M;mager 

Affitiafedwilh: 

Las Angeles/Orange CDul1!ies 

Buifding and Cons/ruclion 

TradesCou!1cll 

Sl8le BuiJdmg and Cosfmc(i'on 

TrMe Council or Califamia 

Catifomia Stale Association of 

13lecfricafWorkets 

JoJntcXfYcutfveCon/erencel 

Southern California Electrical 

"\larkers 

California Labor Federation 

A merican Federation of L iJbor 

Congress of Industrial 

Orgamzalions 

Orange Counly Federafion 

of LabDf, AFt·elO 

May 23, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

United States House of Representatives 

4701 Sisk Rd., Suite 202 

Modesto, CA 95356 

Dear Congressman Denham: 

On behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 441, I 

would like to express our support for California's High-Speed Rail project and 

appreciate this opportunity to comment on this urgently needed improvement to our 

transportation system. We are part of California's Building Trades, which represents 

395,000 construction workers in the state of California. These workers are exclusively 

employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

quality bids who will employ a streamlined highly-skilled workforce. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among 

the highest in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly 

needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually 

lead, we believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleViate the 

gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars and 

interstate freeways to move our citizens. At the same time, our economy can benefit 

. by such a public works project that will serve the public and business, improve our 

environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of 

infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both shortterm and permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create 

those jobs and get Californians to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building Hi9h-Speed Rail now. California's 

transportation system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by 

mid-centul)'. High-Speed Rail is the only viable means ofmaking sure our 

transportation infrastructure can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more 

and more freeways and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally 

damaging and less efficient for moving millions more Californians up and down our 

state. 

Sincerely, 

&!i!$o/ 

Business Manager 

DMCdb 

Opeiu#537/an·cio 
352 


Insert offset folio 319 here 81259.319

----------------------~~~0~~------------------------

11Itperial County Building 

P.O. Bo;>.' 1327 

El Ceil/rO, ell 92244 

May28,2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

Construction Trades Couucil 

Telepholle (760) J55¥1880 

Facsimile (760) 355-1846 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. Ofille 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the highest 

in the nation. This project wiIlnot only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail syst:eID. -that vvouid alleviate the gridlock at our airports,. congestion in our skies,. 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our citizens. This can be achieved 

and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the 

public and business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and constnlction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds ofthousands of jobs will be created, both short-teon and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley_ So lets create those jobs and get to 

work now. 

We simply can't affon:! not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. High-
353 


Insert offset folio 320 here 81259.320

Speed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expensive, more envirournentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographieally and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

Secretary/Treasurer 

ICB&CTC 
354 


Insert offset folio 321 here 81259.321

17495 HURLEY STREET EAST 

May 28,2013 

Ironworkers Local 433 

International Association Of Bridge, Structural & 

Ornamental Iron Worker. A.F.L.- C.I.O. 

CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91744 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

PHONE, (626) 96+2500 

FAX, (626) 964-1919 

mike@ironw orkcrs433.org 

MICHAEL SILVEY Finahcial Secretary .. Trcmmrcr 

Business Manager 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on 

California's High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvcment to our 

transportation system that we are eager to begin bUilding. The Building Trades represents 

395,000 construction workers in the state ofCaHfornia. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the 

state of California's apprenticeship progmms, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the 

Building Trades. These workers are exclusively employed by private construction 

companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined 

highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount of time, building it 

once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the 

highest in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly 

needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, 

we believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our 

airports, congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to 

move our citizens. This can be achieved and, at the same time, our economy can be 

driven by this public works project that will serve the public and business, improve our 

environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only tbe economic multiplier of 

infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modern. effIcient transportation system, our environment 

needs cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands 

of good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this 

project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 
355 


Insert offset folio 322 here 81259.322

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-term 

and permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs 

and get to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. Calitbmia's 

transportation system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by 

mid-century. High-Speed Rail is the only viable means of maldng sure our transportation 

infrastructure can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and more 

freeways and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally damaging and 

less efficient for moving millions more Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and 

Asia, it is proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 

to 500 miles apart, precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will 

serve. California, both geographically and economically, is practically designed for 

High-Speed Rail. 

Michael Silvey 

Business Manager 

Ironworkers Local 433 
356 


Insert offset folio 323 here 81259.323

Founded 1889 V,, Loot Clliw Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union #230 

6313 Nancy Ridge Dr., San Diego, California 92121 

Subim (858) 554·0586 fax (858) 554·0591 

www.ualocal230.org 

Serving San Diego for over 100 Years 

1900-2013 

May 28,2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

"\V1Hbm P. H~t~ 

(;,',;;nl/[','«irft!" 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on California's 

High·Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation system that we 

are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

state of California. 0 f the 51,000 apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs,49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. These workers are 

exclusively employed by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering 

the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least 

amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of Calif ami a is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit for the population of this stale, but will eventually lead, we believe, to a nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, congestion in our skies, 

and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move- our citizens~ This -can be achieved 

and,. at the same time,. our economy can be driven by this puh.Hc works project that win serve the 

public and business, improve our environment,. and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a mote modern, efficient transportation system:!'- oue environlnent needs 

cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the h tlndreds of thousands of good new 

jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. Vie strongly support getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-tenn and 

permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So lets create tbose jobs and get to 

workno"v~ 
357 


Insert offset folio 324 here 81259.324

Congressman Denham 

May 28, 2013 

Page 2 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. California's transportation 

system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways and airports would be more 

expellSive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for moving millions more 

Californians up and down our slate. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apart, 

precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will serve. California, both 

geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air quality because 

instead ofremoving cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, ifnot a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sin~erelY' / fl /./ 

Kirk C osswhlte 

.~ 

Business Manager/Financial Secretary-Treasurer 

United Association of Plumbers & Steamfitters 

Local Union #230 

KC/jj, 

opeiu#537 

aft-cio 
358 


Insert offset folio 325 here 81259.325

<£oea( Clbtiott 569 

(!/an 6P':-ego 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKEis'-~- ~ns Viewrld" Avenue. Sulle 100 SaD OieQo. CA 92123-1623 (8561569·8900 

1\13y28.2013 

Dear Congressman Denham: 

Cnlifomia's Building Trades workers appreciate tbis opportunity to comment on California's 

High-Speed Rail project. lUI urgently needed improvement 10 our ITllnsporl&lion system tbat we 

are eager to begin buildiug, The Building Trades represents 395,000 construction workers in the 

stnte of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices ill the state of California's apprenticeship 

programs. 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building Trades. TIlese workers are 

exclusively employed by priyate construction companies who nre .,,'lUded projects by offuring 

!he lowest bid. using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the pmjeet in the least 

anlount of time, building it (luee and doing it right. 

Unemployment fur construction workers in the Centrul Valley of Cali fomi a is among the highest 

in the nation. This project will not only pro"ide a clean, efficient and badly needed third mode of 

mass transit fur the population of this state, but will eventuaUy lead, we believe, to • nationwide 

high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock .t our airports, congestion in our skies. 

and total dependency on cars and int=tate tfeeways to move our citizens, Tlus can be achieved 

and, at the same time. our economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve !he 

public and business, improve our ""vironment, and absolutely drive our economy as only !he 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and consbllction jobs can. 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, ollr ell~ironment needs 

c1eane..- modes of tmnsportation, and OlD' workers need the hundreds of thDUsands of good new 

jobs High-Speed RlIil will bring ligllt now, We strongly snpport getting this project moving now, 

and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both short-tenn Bnd 

pennanellt, including a great many in the Centra) Valley. So lets create tbose jobs and get to 

work now. 

We sinlply can't afton! Dot to strut building High-Speed Rail !lOW. Califomia's ITllnsportation 

system is already overtaxed and om' population will reach 60 million by mid-century. HighSpeed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation infrastructure can meet our 

gl'O\\'ing demand. COlltinning to huild more and more freeways and airp0l1s would be mOfe 

expensive. more environmentally damaging and less efficient tor moving. minions more 

Califomians up and down our state. 
359 


Insert offset folio 326 here 81259.326

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful aroulld the world. In Europe and Asia, it is 

proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 500 miles apmt, 

precisely the type of corridor that Calitbrnia's High-Speed Rail will serve. C.alifOl1lia, both 

geographically and eCOl)Olllically, is practically designed for High-Speed Rnil. 

\Vithout High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of longer 

commutes. a poorer quality oflite from ever greater truffic delays, and pOorer air quality because 

instead of remo\~ng cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now, California Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe "'-ill serve the public for 

decades. if not a cenrury and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Blidge and the Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

Johnny Simpson 

Business Manager 

JS:dkm 

Opeiu #537, aft·cio, de 
360 


Insert offset folio 327 here 81259.327

3Jnternationa l lBrotf)cri)Ool.l of QI:lcrtrical Mlorkct.5' 

1LoCill Z!llnion jl0. 413 

100 THOMAS RD. 

8UELLTON, CA 93427 

May 28,2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

U,S, Representative 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

PHONE: 8051688-a083 

FAX; 8051688-7144 

California's Building Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on 

California's High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our 

transportation system that we are eager to begin building, The Building Trades 

represents 395,000 construction workers in the state of California, Of the 51,000 

apprentices in the state of California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in 

apprenticeships through the Building Trades, These workers are exclusively employed 

by private construction companies who are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, 

using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, completing the project in the least amount 

of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of California is among the 

highest in the nation, This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly 

needed third mode of mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually 

lead, we believe, to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock 

at our airports, congestion in our skies, and lotal dependency on cars and interstate 

freeways to move our citizens, This can be achieved and, at the same time, our 

economy can be driven by this public works project that will serve the public and 

business, improve our environment, and absolutely drive our economy as only the 

economic multiplier of infrastructure and construction jobs can, 

Our economy needs a more modern, efficient transportation system, our environment 

needs cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of 

thousands of good new jobs High-Speed Rail wi!! bring right now. We strongly support 

getting this project moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays, 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both shortterm and permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley, So lets create those 

jobs and get to work now, 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now, California's 

transportation system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by 

mid-century. High- Speed Rail is the only viable means of mal<ing sure our 

transportation infrastructure can meet our growing demand, Continuing to build more 
361 


Insert offset folio 328 here 81259.328

and more freeways and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally 

damaging and less efficient for moving millions more Californians up and down our 

state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and 

Asia, it is proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 

to 500 miles apart, precisely the type of corridor that California's High-Speed Rail will 

serve. California, both geographically and economically, is practically designed for HighSpeed Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of 

longer commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air 

quality because instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. California Building Trades workers are proud to be given 

the opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public 

for decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the 

Hoover Dam. 

Sincerely, 

~_~~/~s;;-C";; _ 

Chuck Huddleston 

Business Manager 

Local Union 413, lBEW 

CH/mfr 

Opeiu#537/afl-cio 
362 


Insert offset folio 329 here 81259.329

May 23, 2013 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

I am writing as an electrical contractor toward the building of the California High Speed Rail project. 

When I was first introduced to you, I did not know your position relative to the High Speed Rail project, 

however, as you explained through your speaking to the IBEW and local Modesto electrical contractors at 

Dewz Restaurant, I gained a respect for your position that the High Speed Rail is needed, but controls were 

required to prevent another project laden with delays and spiraling changes. 

In attending another of your events at the Brookside Country Club, I heard the same positive discussion 

toward the High Speed Rail and was pleased to understand your position that much oftrade work should be 

performed by Local Business. The California Central Valley is known for its concentration of highly qualified 

bUilding tradesmen. Much effort through the State and Local Training Programs have developed young and 

talented electricians, plumbers, carpenters and the like, only to lose them to large organizations "over the hill" 

paying larger wage packages. LOSing these talented tradesmen not only creates a void in the Central Valley 

construction market, but it creates bedroom communities and puts significant financial pressure on the Local 

Businesses. 

To combat this exodus, the Central Valley needs Local Living Wage Jobs, which will ensure the discretionary 

money is spent in the Central Valley. 

In addition to Local Jobs, the High Speed Rail will encourage new infrastructure and community development 

surrounding the HSR stopping points. One clear example of this occurrence is the Dublin/Livermore valley, 

where the (relatively) new BART station has created a new community of high-density residential, new 

infrastructure, new tax bases and an appealing skyline promoted by publicly and privately funded projects. 

Our company, Collins Electrical, and my family, the Gini's of Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto, are in full 

support of your efforts to control the spending and to continue to cautiously expedite the HSR project. If 

there is anything we can do further to support your efforts, please feel free to call on us. Our company has 

been in business since 1928 in the above locations, and we are here to stay, we continue to support efforts 

that create jobs for our employees, and we are here to support new ideas that will help California remain a 

competitive force in the world. 

,1) l15427 

611 W. Fremont Street. Stockton, California 95203. Tel (209) 466-3691 • Fax (209) 466-3146 

www.collinselectric.com 

Member of 
363 


Insert offset folio 330 here 81259.330

Finally, I hope to see you in DC on June 27th• My daughter was awarded first place prize through your 

Congressional Art Contest and our family will be in DC for the installation ceremony. My daughter, and family, 

were very surprised, and we appreciate your investment and acknowledgement of Arts and Youth. 

Have a great day. 

Chron 

State License 

tJ 115427 

611 W. Fremont St,eet. Stockton. California 95203. Tel (209) 466·3691 • Fax (209) 466-3146 Member 01 

www.collinselectric.com • 
364 


Insert offset folio 331 here 81259.331

May 28, 2013 

""""--- Electric Inc. 

ELecTRICAL CONTRACTINO &: ENGINeERING 

STOCKTON CA. SINcr; 1925 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

California's Buifding Trades workers appreciate this opportunity to comment on 

Califomia's High-Speed Rail project, an urgently needed improvement to our transportation 

system that we are eager to begin building. The Building Trades represents 395,000 

construction workers in the state of California. Of the 51,000 apprentices in the state of 

California's apprenticeship programs, 49,623 are in apprenticeships through the Building 

Trades. These workers are exclusively employed by private construction companies who 

are awarded projects by offering the lowest bid, using a streamlined highly-skilled workforce, 

completing the project in the least amount of time, building it once and doing it right. 

Unemployment for construction workers in the Central Valley of Califomia is among the 

highest in the nation. This project will not only provide a clean, efficient and badly needed 

third mode of mass transit for the population of this state, but will eventually lead, we believe, 

to a nationwide high-speed rail system that would alleviate the gridlock at our airports, 

congestion in our skies, and total dependency on cars and interstate freeways to move our 

citizens. This can be achieved and, at the same time, our economy can be driven by this 

public works project that will serve the public and business, improve our environment, and 

absolutely drive our economy as only the economic multiplier of infrastructure and 

construction jobs can. . 

Our economy needs a more modem, efficient transportation system, our environment 

needs cleaner modes of transportation, and our workers need the hundreds of thousands of 

good new jobs High-Speed Rail will bring right now. We strongly support getting this project 

moving now, and strongly oppose any further delays. 

Over the life of the project, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, both shortterm and permanent, including a great many in the Central Valley. So let's create those jobs 

and get to work now. 

We simply can't afford not to start building High-Speed Rail now. Califomia's 

transportation system is already overtaxed and our population will reach 60 million by midcentury. High- Speed Rail is the only viable means of making sure our transportation 

infrastructure can meet our growing demand. Continuing to build more and more freeways 

317 N Grant Street Stockton, California 95202-2600 Phone (209) 462-0717 Fax (209) 462-2556 

License # 288366 
365 


Insert offset folio 332 here 81259.332

ELECTIUCAL CONTRACTING &! ENGlNEEIUNG 

STOCKTON CA. SINCE 1925 

and airports would be more expensive, more environmentally damaging and less efficient for 

moving millions more Californians up and down our state. 

High-Speed Rail is proving tremendously successful around the world. In Europe and 

Asia, it is proving to be the mode of choice along corridors with population centers 100 to 

500 miles apart, precisely the type of corridor that Califomia's High-Speed Rail will serve. 

Califomia, both geographically and economically, is practically designed for High-Speed 

Rail. 

Without High-Speed Rail, we would face a loss of economic productivity because of 

longer commutes, a poorer quality of life from ever greater traffic delays, and poorer air 

quality because instead of removing cars from the road, we will be adding more. 

We can, and must do this now. Califomia Building Trades workers are proud to be given the 

opportunity to work on this infrastructure project that we believe will serve the public for 

decades, if not a century and beyond, as have the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover 

Dam. 

Sincerely, 

Barry Frain 

President 

Con J Franke Electric 

317 N Grant Street Stockton, California 95202-2600 Phone (209) 462-0717 Fax (209) 462-2556 

License # 288366 
366 


Insert offset folio 333 here 81259.333

May 25", 2013 

The Honorable leffDenham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and HazardousMaterials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

The California High Speed Rail will inject tens of thousands of good, family supporting jobs to our state 

and most impOltantly to our valley. These jobs are essential for our economy as they impact local 

businesses, development and educational opportunities. Population growth is expected and we need to 

expand the infrastructure to accommodate for the growth. The California High Speed Rail is an 

alternative transportation that meets the future growth and demand for access throughout our state. 

Respectfully, 

Jose Rodriguez 

Board Trustee 

Madera Unified School District 
367 


Insert offset folio 334 here 81259.334

May 2B, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads; Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

216S Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

We can't afford n.ill to build high speed rail now. California needs it and the Central Valley desperately need it. In 

California, we bave $100 billion in unmet transportation needs. HSR will halve that need simply by creating 

another option for travel. It is a perfect mode of intermediate distance travel that we lack. Projects are coming in 

well below estimates. It is also a non·fossil fuel option that we don't have now. It will (according to Congressman 

Bill Shuster) reduce demand for fossil fuel. It will reduce air pollution. It will relieve traffic congestion on our 

highways and airports. There is no good reason not to fund the project. 

California will build this project and the federal gov!. should do its part as it has always done with large 

infrastructure projects. We can and should quadruple transportation funding. Even with this increase, the 

transportation budget would be less than 1/5 of our military spending. Our transportation infrastructure is 

woefully outdated and falling apart. We need a modern transportation system now. 

Why Congress is willing to spend huge amounts of our tax dollars on military spending but won't adequately fund 

transportation and infrastructure projects is a national disgrace. 

Respectfully, 

,w,,",2;?:;.9fc 

Owner 

IANDMA"U( 

REA L E ~ TAr E 

;: ~ North 'I' Street, Suite B • Madera, California 93637 • (559) 662-2002 
368 


Insert offset folio 335 here 81259.335

May 23, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materjals 

Committee on Transportatlon and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

u.s. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

I'm writing to express my strong support for the California High Speed Rail project. I was a member of the 

original california High Speed Rail Task Force tasked with determining the feasibility of high speed rail in California. 

'We determined that California was well suited for true high speed rail and recommended moving forward with 

the project. The legislature accepted our findings. and over 20 years later we are set to begin construction. 

Congress should help California expedite this project. There are billions of dollars already appropriated 

solely for high speed rail that remain unspent. The administration has expressed a willingness to further fund high 

speed rail projects in the U.S. and California is in a pOSition to receive funding and put it on the ground now. 

Construction costs are favorable as major transportation projects are being built for 80% of estimates. Californians 

have consistently supported high speed rail and voted to spend $9 billion toward a statewide system. No other 

state has made such a committement. 

High speed rall is an integral component of a modern transportation network. For distances ranging from 

150 to 500 miles" it is more efficient than auto or air travel. In California, it is the missing piece of a modern and 

efficient transportation network. California should build it now. We can~t wait any longer. 

Respectfully! 

~ Madera County Supervisor, Ret. 

SE _1_. 51& 
369 


Insert offset folio 336 here 81259.336

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Raybum House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The California High Speed Rail project is the missing component to our current transportation 

infrastructure. [am a staunch supporter ofthe project for the indisputable benefits and opportunities that 

it provides. The connectivity that it offers will greatly enhance educational opportunities which win 

improve the skilled labor base across California. Our region suffers from connectivity in many respects. 

High speed rail will close the gap by creating reasonable access to and from resources in the Bay Area 

and southern California. 

Respectfully, 

Ricardo Arredondo 

Board President 

Madera Unified School DistTict 
370 


Insert offset folio 337 here 81259.337

COUNTY 

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable JeffDcnham 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines~ and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

As a Merced County Supervisor I have been involved in the High Speed Rail project for 

over five years. Much of the approved alignment traverses my supervisorial district. 

More of the district I represent will be impacted by the selection of the "wye" alignment. 

The Modesto Bee recently published an article I wrote on the project. I respectfully 

request you place that column in the record of your committee's hearing. Clearly, the 

California High Speed Rail committee has gone the extra mile in the last two years to 

address the Goncerns ofthe communities it impacts. 

California, and the valley, disparately need the jobs the project will create. Let's move 

forward and begin to realize the significant economic improvement this project will bring 

to our valley. 

"Iii: ~) UPedr~zo Merced County Supervisor 
371 


Insert offset folio 338 here 81259.338

Print This Article 

Posted on Sat, May. 11,2013 

PEDROZa: Get the facts, attend meetings and judge rail project yourself 

By John Pedrozo 

last updated: May 11,2013 06:15:09 PM 

As a Merced County supervisor and member ofthe San Joaquin Rail committee, I have attended California 

High-Speed Rail Authority meetings throughout the state and have worked with the authority and stakeholder 

groups throughout the Central VaHey for more than five years. 

Let's just start out with saying that I do agree with at least one of Eric Christen's statements in his May I 

commentary ("Backroom deals tarnish California's bullet train project) in The Bee: California high-speed rail is 

the 21st century is the vision of America's future. I think he makes a good point. High-speed rail will help take 

California to the next level and provide an innovative and sustainable transportation project that will benefit all 

Californians. 

Over the years a great deal of the criticism ofthe authority was directed at miscommunication and a perceived 

arrogance that would run roughshod over local interests. Some of this criticism was valid. But in the last two 

years, there has been a sea change in the authority'S approach to stakeholders, transparency and public 

responses. That change is what has allowed so much recent progress in the project. 

Regarding the other accusations against the rail authority, I couldn't disagree more. The facts don't support his 

statements. 

His comments about board meetings and media inquiries are vague and without merit. 

More importantly, let's move into the larger accusations that the authority somehow bent the rules to name 

Tutor Saliba/Zachry/Parsons as the contractor because they wanted to select someone from California. This is 

ludicrous. All bidders were aware oflhe rules more than five months before SUbmitting their proposals and had 

equal opportunity to submit a winning proposal. Further, the authority had no way of knowing who would 

submit proposals. 

Is he arguing that a bid that is under budget and will generate thousands of jobs for Californians is a bad thing? 

We have some of the worst job numbers in the nation, and I know a lot of people in the community that are 

looking for long-term, well paying jobs. What might he say ifthe project bid was over budget, or that the jobs 

would be flooding in from out of state? Would Christen and his allies have a brand new set of objectionsO Or 

would they be celebrating the outsourcing of jobs and running over budget? 

He also accuses the authority of underhanded dealings ranging from the Community Benefits Agreement, which 

has been approved by the Federal Railroad Administration, and announcing the bid cbanges. This information 

has been available for months on the authority'S website and has been covered during Board of Directors 

presentations. 

For someone who is entirely sure ofthe authority'S dishonesty on every aspect ofthis project, Christen has not 

been particularly diligent about checking the facts before he makes his statements. Peppering his commentary 

with words like "cynic" and "coincidence" and "cronyism" does not necessarily ensure accuracy and truthtelling. It sounds like rhetoric to me. 

At the end of his commentary, Christen says that all large projects like this one deserve strong leadership, good 

oversight and public scrutiny to ensure that they are being done is the best way possible to the least expense of 

the taxpayer. Once again, we are in agreement. 

It's been my experience that the current authority leadership is committed to working with members ofthe 
372 


Insert offset folio 339 here 81259.339

community to ensure that this first-of-a-kind project is done in a way that benefits all residents of the state and 

provides as minimum of an impact as possible. The current authority leadership has taken steps to improve 

communication and cooperation with all the stakeholders. This attitude of cooperation and partnership has been 

the hallmark ofthe authority's work during the past two years. 

So it's on us as Californians to get the facts, attend the board of directors' meetings to see for ourselves what's 

going on, and learn more about this project that will benefit us with jobs, a cleaner environment and an 

alternative form of transportation that will keep us from having to pave over every inch of the state for our ever 

increasing population. 

EDITOR'S NOTE 

California's high-speed rail project has been discussed since the early 1990s and evolved into a bond proposal 

that voters approved in all 2008. Project supporters now say that by 2029, a high-speed rail system will run 

from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin. There has been controversy every step ofthe way and it continues 

even as the authority is buying land and hopes to have construction begin this summer. We have run numerous 

commentaries, pro and can, about high-speed rail and offer two more today. The Modesto Bee's official 

position, in a nutshell: High-speed rail is an interesting idea, but this isn't the right time or the right plan. 

This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal 

lise. Copyright © 2013, The Modesto Bee, 1325 H St., Modesto, CA 95354 Phone: (209) 578-2000. 
373 


Insert offset folio 340 here 81259.340

ORANGECOUNTV 

BUSINESS COUNCIL 

May 24, 2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chairman 

ORANGE COUNTYS LEIlDING VOICE OF BUSINESS 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

Orange County Business Council is the leading voice of business for America's sixth largest county. 

OCBC's mission is to enhance the region's economic prosperity while maintaining a high quality of life. 

OCBC focuses on four initiatives: improving infrastructure, enhancing workforce development, 

increasing the supply of workforce housing and maintaining a robust economic climate. OCBC strongly 

supports the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) project. 

Developing high-speed rail in Califomia is essential for continued growth and prosperity. OCBC 

contends that the High-Speed Rail Authority is meeting its promise to Califomia voters. HSR must start 

somewhere, and the Initial Operating Segment and strategy identified in the revised 2012 Business Plan 

is worth pursuing. We look forward to HSR's eventual arrival in Orange County. 

Transportation infrastrncture is a building block to the local and regional economy and businesses in 

Califomia need mobility choices for both operations and employees. TranspOltation solutions like HSR 

help keep and attract companies to California and Orange County. Without question, HSR will provide 

relief to capacity challenged freeways and airports while simultaneously improving the state's network of 

passenger rail options. The section of HSR that travels between Los Angeles and Orange County is part 

of the LOSSAN corridor, the second busiest passenger rail corridor in the country. HSR will enhance the 

LOSSAN corridor in such a way that benefits existing commuter and freight rail services for both 

Southern California and the entire national goods movement network. As robust passenger rail ridership 

already exists, the introduction ofHSR increases train ridership in the region - supporting the review of 

independent experts that have validated the Authority'S ridership and revenue projections as reasonable 

and realistic. 
374 


Insert offset folio 341 here 81259.341

Page Two 

SupportHSR 

May 24, 2013 

OCBC is grateful for the Congressional Sub-Committee's efforts to ensure that this ground-breaking 

project is undertaken in a manner that is transparent and factual and appreciate the opportunity to 

reaffirm our long-standing and continued support. 

Sincerely, 

Lucy Dunn 

President and CEO 

Orange County Business Council 

LD:jl:bs 

Cc: Bryan Starr, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, OCBC 
375 


Insert offset folio 342 here 81259.342

ROARD MEM8ERS 

Dan Ri<hard 

Thomas Rid1.'lHis 

Jim Hartnett 

P3tr!ck 

W. Henn!ng, Sr. 

Katherine 

Perez·Estoiano 

Michael Rossi 

lynn Schenk 

Thomas J, UmbNg 

jeffMDtales 

CALIFORNIA 

High-Speed Rail Authority 

July 9. 2013 

The Honorable leffDenharn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelincs and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

1730 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chainnan Denham: 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify at the May 2S field hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Railroads. Pipelines and Hazardous Materials in Madera, California. I was pleased to have the 

opportunity to explain California's high-speed rail program and the many benefits it will provide. 

It also proved to be an excellent forum to discuss the California High-Speed Rail Authority's 

(Authority) rccent accomplishments, as recognized by recent commentary from the Legislative 

Peer Review Group. the California State Auditor, and the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office. After reviewing the transcript of the hearing, I would like to provide the Subcommittee 

with some additional infonnation requested during the proceedings, as well as noting a few 

grammatical corrections for the record. 

Analysis of the Interstate 5 Corridor 

Representative Valadao asked whether a "study" pertaining to the Authority's evaluation of the 

Interstate 5 (1-5) corridor had been made available to the pUblic. I indicatecl that I believe it had 

been but would verify for the record. Indeed, all studies perfonned by and for the Authority 

pertaining to the lack of suitability orthe 1-5 corridor are available to the public and included on 

the Authority's website. These include: (I) the Authority's 2000 Business Plan'; (2) the 

Statewide Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRJEIS) '; 

(3) the Revised Draft Fresno to Bakerstield EIR/EIS"'; and, (4) the 2012 Conceptual 1-5 Corridor 

Study, Bakersfield to San Fernando Valley'. 

These studies underseore the large amount of work done, in an open public process. to determine 

the best way to deliver the Central Valley backbone of the high-speed rail system. The universal 

conclusion of these studies, reaffirmed year after year, is that an 1-5 alignment would have 

several negative effects including: loss of ridership and increased operating costs as the Central 

Valley's urban areas would have limited access to the system~ sprawl inducement due to 

increased demand for housing along the high-speed rail corridor: and increased agricultural 

impacts created by the need to provide connections to the system from the major cities on the 

Valley's east side. 

770 L Street, Suite BOO Sacramento, CA 95814· T: (916) 324-1541" F: (916) 322-0827" www.hsr.ca.gov 
376 


Insert offset folio 343 here 81259.343

Importantly, AB 3034, which was approved by the State Legislature and then by voters as The Safe, 

Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act for the 21" Century (Proposition I A) mandates that the high-speed 

rail system, "link all of the state's major population centers," including the cities of Central Valley, and 

specifies that the high-speed rail corridor will include, "Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles 

Union Station." As you know, the Valley's cities are not located on 1-5. Constructing the system on the 

1-5 corridor would not comply with the intent or the requirements of the legislation that you supported as 

a State Senator or of the proposition voters approved. Building on the 1-5 corridor would also induce 

sprawl, as the Valley's cities would likely grow from their current boundaries westward to 1-5, creating a 

greater impact on agricultural land and operations. 

The significance of including the Central Valley in the high-speed rail program, and not bypassing it, 

cannot be overlooked. In many ways, the growing divide in California is between the coastal and the 

inland areas. Unemployment in the Central Valley is almost 50 percent higher than the state average. 

While coastal regions have seen major improvements in air quality, pollution continues to be a major 

problem in the Valley, with asthma rates growing. Furthennore, although it possesses some of the most 

productive and richest agricultural areas in the world, the Central Valley's counties are among the poorest 

in the nation. A key reason for this paradox is the Valley's lack of economic diversity. As has been the 

case with high-speed rail systems around the world, and even in the Northeast Corridor. tying the Central 

Valley with the rest of our state will provide more opportunities for Valley residents by diversifying and 

strengthening the region's economy. 

The requirements of AB3034IProposition I A underscore that the intent of this investment in high-speed 

rail is not just to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco, but to connect !l!.! of the state's population 

centers. It should also be noted that air service in and out of the Valley is limited and very expensive. 

High-speed rail will connect Los Angeles and the Bay Area, and, very importantly, connect both of them 

to the Central Valley. This will create economic opportunities that the Valley has never had by tying all 

of our regional economics together to make our state stronger. 

Cost Estimates and Task Orders 

Representative Valadao also raised a question regarding statements made by Authority stafT in the course 

of the now settled County of Madera CEQA lawsuit, which appeared to indicate cost growth for the first 

construction segment. Since I was not familiar with the particular material he was referencing, I promised 

to provide more details. I am happy to inform the Subcommittee that there was no cost growth in 

Construction Package I (CP I) and that the clerical error that led to Rep. Valadao's confusion was 

remedied by subsequent addenda to the Request for Proposals (RFP). 

Specilically, the question referred to a statement filed by the Authority regarding the estimated cost of 

CPI, the 29 mile segment from Madera County to the City of Fresno. The Authority'S statement clarified 

that the July 2012 Addendum 4 to the RFP for design-build services for CPI included draft Task Orders 

that included informational-only "Estimated Value" calculations for the cost of utility relocation. These 

estimates were provided so that the contract bidders could have a clearer understanding of project costs 

when SUbmitting their bids. 

After releasing Addendum 4, Authority 5tatT realized that, due to a clerical error. the July 2012 draft Task 

Orders also included costs for major non-utility-related high-speed rail infrastructure (i.e. overpasses and 

other structures). However, those non-utility-related high-speed rail infrastructure cost estimates had 

already been correctly included in the Authority's lolal CPI contract cost estimate 01'$1.2 to $1.8 billion. 

This mistake was corrected by future Addenda to the RFP so that the Authority's Task Orders with local 

governments and private utilities remained separate from the design-build contract RFP. All contract 

2 
377 


Insert offset folio 344 here 81259.344

bidders were made aware of the error. The final bids, including that of the selected bidder, all came in 

within or below the cost estimates included in the RFP, thus completely resolving this issue. 

For your records, all of the Addenda to the RFP for CP I are featmed on the Authority's website for 

public access. 

Transcript Corrections 

I would also like to bring to your attention some typographical errors in the official transcript of the 

Hearing provided to me by the Subcommittee. These corrections are also included in the attached copy of 

the transcript: 

"Our business plan signaled a dramatic shift from that thinking into an approach where highspeed rail is fully integrated with other ~ intercity systems." Page 20, Lines 444-445 

"And so the plan is to tart here, we believe, this summer, building that line from about Madera 

Fafms Acres, I think it is, down into Fresno." Page 54, Line 1126 

"We think that there are somc things that could be done in ~PRIIA or other places that can 

get the private sector involved earlier." Page 97, Line 2212 

Thank you again for inviting me to testiry before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and 

Hazardous Materials and for accepting this letter as part of the record of the hearing. I look forward to 

working with you in the future to deliver a high-speed rail program that benefits California and the nation. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Richard 

Chair 

Board of Directors 

Enclosure 

3 
378 


Insert offset folio 345 here 81259.345

June 27, 2013 

Dear Chairman Denham, 

It was an honor to meet you and your wonderful team at the Subcommittee 

on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials' Congressional Oversight 

Hearing on the California High-Speed Rail project in Madera, California on 

May 28, 2013. Thank you again for holding this important event in the 

Central Valley. It's very much appreciated! 

I had never been to a congressional hearing in my life so it was an experience 

I will always remember. First impressions are a lasting one and I appreciate 

you taking the time (and not rushing) with evetyone (including myself) who 

came up to you. Both Counsel Fred Miller and Staff Director Mike Friedberg 

were very nice. Your staff onsite in Madera, and at your offices in Modesto 

and Washington, DC has been extremely accommodating, especially your 

Legislative Director Bret Manley. Thank you again. Special thanks also to 

Congressmen David Valadao and Congressman Jim Costa for their 

important roles at the hearing. 

There were many of us in the audience who would've loved to have had a 

chance to speak since everyone in the proposed California high-speed rail 

routes has a back story. 

Our family has lived in Laton, California for 50+ years. We have also owned 

and farmed a 135-acre parcel of land since 1945. This "Home Place" is along 

the Cole Slough of the Kings River and also part of the proposed high-speed 

rail route. 

My folks have been humanitarians. They helped Kings River Conservation 

District (KRCD) save the town of Laton in 1969 when our family furnished 

dirt to build levees to keep this "train town" from flooding. 
379 


Insert offset folio 346 here 81259.346

Page 2 

My dad also farmed and saved the land of his neighbors, the Inouye Family 

in Kingsburg, California while they were interned during World War II. 

We have two (2) properties in the proposed high-speed rail pathway - the 

aforementioned 13S-acre "Home Place" and a 240 acre farm across and 

adjacent to HWY 43 by the Cole Slough of the Kings River. 

Our land, like many others who farm and dairy in the Central Valley are rich 

and fertile ones, providing for those all over the world. Anytime is a busy 

time of year for those in farming which has made this entire experience 

tough for so many. 

I have met many individuals in the proposed routes whose hopes and 

dreams for their families have also been in a holding pattern the past few 

years, all while the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) 

continues to play games with people's lives and livelihoods by changing the 

true meaning of high-speed rail. They continue to make up their own set of 

rules along the way! 

I make sure to read the latest headlines and keep up with how the biggest 

infrastructure project of it's kind in the great state of California is being 

watered down with bookends and toyed with technicaIly ... and it just 

doesn't make any sense. When I first officially addressed the impacts to our 

family farm back in October 2011, one question was our concern of a 

possible derailment, which would be catastrophic considering our close 

proximity. Since the recent selection of the least technically sound 

construction firm, the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board is making 

this pOSSibility an almost certain reality. 

I will admit the dark cloud those of us in the proposed routes have been 

living under the past few years has a silver lining only because I have met a 

wonderful group of individuals who are also adversely affected. They have 

become a second family to me. They are moms and dads, sons and 

daughters, pastors, farmers, dairymen/ women, those in construction, 

mechanics, doctors, teachers, veterans, retirees, homeowners, small business 

owners and concerned citizens who sincerely care about one another, 
380 


Insert offset folio 347 here 81259.347

Page 3 

not just themselves. They also hail from every political party! If there's one 

thing I've learned through this entire experience, it's that most issues are 

nonpartisan and those who label it otherwise are trying to divert attention 

away from the real matters at hand! 

California's high-speed rail is a project that is not only impacting 

Californians today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year and the 

years following, but for all future generations to come the world over! This is 

a project that must be done right and has not been thus far. 

I am proud to be a lifelong Californian who was born and raised in the 

Central Valley. As someone who has traveled abroad on both light rail and 

speed trains, I also want to be proud of having the best this state has to offer 

including a high-speed train someday. The version being offered now is not 

what my fellow Californians voted for when they went to the polls in 

November 2008. 

Chairman Denham, thank you in advance for making sure this testimony is 

part of the official Congressional Record for the Subcommittee on Railroads, 

Pipelines and Hazardous Materials' Congressional Oversight Hearing on 

California's High-Speed Rail project held in Madera, California on May 28, 

2013. 

Respectfully, 

Shelli Andranigian 

On behalf of the Andranigian Family and Andranigian Farming 

I 

• IS 

• 

• 

d 
381 


Insert offset folio 348 here 81259.348

Michael J. Brady 

Attorney at Law 

• • :a 

• ' •• 1 F 

I I .. 

My name is Michael 1. Brady. I am an attomey representing the County of Kings, 

John Tos, and Aaron Fukuda against the Authority, alleging that the project in the Central Valley 

violates Proposition lA in 10 important respects. 

Our case is scheduled for trial in Sacramento Superior Court on May 31, three days after 

your hearing. Many of the residents of Congressman Denham's district are involved in this 

struggle to preserve their family lands, farms, ranches, homes, and way oflife. 

The Authority currently has many "balls in the air," many issues that it is facing, matters 

that should have been resolved long ago, but have not been resolved. Bottom line: this projcct 

should not be allowed to start by the Federal Govemment; it is premature, with many things 

legally rcquircd to be done before construction can commence. Here is a brief summary: 

1. The STB Matter: Amazingly, the Authority ncver even asked permission from 

the STB for permission to build the project -- on grounds that it did not affect interstate 

commerce; a first year law student would have been able to figure that out! Now, they are 

enmeshed in STB hearings, and their motion to dismiss was denied. Hearings and filings are in 

full progress; nothing should be allowed to start until those hearings are completed. There are 

substantial issues that are historically within the purview of the STB. 

2. The Federal grant agreements/contracts with the Authority state that none of 

YOUR (Federal) money can be given to the Authority for commencement of construction 

UNLESS AND UNTIL the Authority obtains written consent [rom existing railroads to use their 

rights of way or encroach upon their existing rights of way_ THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE, 

even though thc Authority is tclling people that construction will start in a few weeks! And it 

will start, according to the Authority, with YOUR FEDERAL MONEY. Has the law been 

violated or is it about to be violated? Union Pacific Railroad is concerned. They just intervened 

in a "bond validation" suit brought by the Authority. UPRR says that it has NEVER been 

presented with a written proposal or contract providing for use ofUPRR's rights of way, despite 

literally years when this could have been done. This is scandalous mismanagement. Imaginc the 

millions of acres ofland controlled by this railroad, with complicated geographical, urban, and 

rural areas traversed. Any contract would be complex and requirc months of negotiations. Yet, 

according to UPRR , nothing has been done to finalize anything. UPRR is very concerned that 

this project will severely (their word) affect its frcight service and the ability to serve its 

customers. Burlington Northern RR is also very unhappy with the Authority for failing to 

communicate with it. UPRR says, as we do, that commencement of the project construction 

would be PREMATURE. This is a serious issue and directly affects FEDERAL INTERESTS 

and Federal money. 

RCI!69569Jl!MC2 Page I 
382 


Insert offset folio 349 here 81259.349

3. Thne is the bidding scandal that has recently erupted. This WILL be 

investigated. It could result in the Authority's having to go back to scratch with the bids. There 

is great unhappiness with the bidder who was selected, given its reputation in the construction 

industry for cost overruns. Federal interests/Federal money are at stake. Another reason why 

commencement of constructing would be premature. 

4. There are serious Federal and State environmental requirements that have not 

been completed. This project should not be commenced until all legally required environmental 

approvals have been completed. 

5. There arc huge questions about the adequacy of financing: did you know that five 

years after Proposition IA was approved, not one single private investor has expressed interest in 

the project? Why? Bccause it is a financial loser, destined to lose money. And did you know 

that Proposition IA EXPRESSLY STATES THAT NO SUBSIDY FOR OPERATING COSTS 

CAN BE PROVIDED BY THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!? This means that no 

private money will EVER arrive, and yet the Authority has announced for years that as much as 

17% of the costs of the project will come from the private sector. So much for truth in 

advertising! Stated succinctly, this project is CURRENTLY 80% short of the $31 billion it 

MUST HAVE under State law before being allowed to start. If it is allowed to start spending 

Federal money first (exactly what they plan to do) YOUR MONEY is at grave risk, and the 

project will face certain risks of non-completion and abandonment with the serious collateral 

damages associated with non completion in urban and rural areas. The Federal Government can 

very legitimately announce that until this financing issue is cured, Federal money will not be put 

at risk, and that it would be premature to allow the project to start until these problems are fixed. 

Conclusion: This project is supposed to be a partnership bctween State and Federal 

governments. State law must therefore be observed and should be respected by the Federal 

Government. This makes practical sense as well, lest Federal money be jeopardized 

unnecessarily. We hope that your committee will reach the conclusion that there are simply too 

many serious unresolved issues to allow this project to proceed at the present time. 

Michael 1lluf:;, J. Bay 8 Cj fko 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

County of Kings v. Cal. High Speed Rail Authority 

RCl/695693l!MC2 Page 2 
383 


Insert offset folio 350 here 81259.350

unity--

Statement on Behalf of the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail 

Prepared for The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials 

Madera Community College Center, Madera, California 

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 

May 23, 2013 

Chairman Denham and Members: 

The Community Coalition on High Speed Rail (CC-HSR) is a grassroots, non-profit 

corporation that has been working since 2009 to make sure that the proposed California 

High-Speed Train project does not adversely affect the economy, environment, or quality 

of life of California's existing communities. 

CC-HSR is deeply grateful forthe Subcommittee's willingness to examine the status of 

the California High-Speed Rail project. CC-HSR representatives are planning to be in attendance 

at the oversight field hearing that the Subcommittee has scheduled in Madera, California on 

May 28, 2013. A great deal of oversight is absolutely required! 

As the project is currently proceeding, over $6 billion dollars of federal and state funds are 

going to be wasted and worse than wasted. The short section of non-electrified track scheduled 

for construction will probably never connect up with population centers in Northern and Southern 

California. Simply put, no one has been able to identify the approximately $100 billion dollars 

needed to complete a true high-speed train system. The present project will result in a 

non-electrified set of train tracks that will not even serve as a "test case" for high-speed rail. 

Worse, the construction proposed is on a routing that will have profoundly adverse impacts 

on California's productive agricultural lands, disrupting farming operations on hundreds offarms, 

and on some of the best agricultural lands in the world. 

Worse, the project currently proposed will be a step backwards, not a step ahead, for rail 

transportation in California's Central Valley. This is because the new track proposed will bypass 

communities where there are currently Amtrak stations, without prOViding any replacement 

stations, so that Amtrak service on the new route will actually be less functional than on the 

existing train track. This will mean a diminished ridership, and reduced access to rail transportation 

for Central Valley residents and businesses. 

CC-HSR and other concerned California residents have urged the federal Surface 

Transportation Board to do a full study of what will really happen ifthe current project proceeds. 

We urge the United States Congress to use all the powers at its disposal to prevent the fiscal and 

economic and rail transportation debacle that is going to result from the current plans of the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 
384 


Insert offset folio 351 here 81259.351

CC-HSR provides information on its website that demonstrates the economic and fiscal 

deficiencies of the project as proposed. 

2 

CC-HSR has submitted extensive materials to the Surface Transportation Board 

demonstrating the proposed project's inconsistency with the National Rail Goals and the massively 

adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. 

CC-HSR is willing and able to respond to questions and information requests from the 

Subcommittee and its staff. We want to reiterate our great appreciation for the Subcommittee's 

examination of the current project. We are hopeful that the Subcommittee's efforts can derail a 

runaway project before it does incalculable damage to the economy of the Central Valley and its 

productive agricultural businesses, and before over $6 billion of public funds are wasted on a 

project that will not even come close to producing any actual high-speed train transportation. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

James R. Janz, President 

CC-HSR Board of Directors 

For more information about the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail please visit the CC-HSR 

website: www.cc-hsr.org. You may also contact CC-HSR by mail at 2995 Woodside Road #400-362, 

Woodside, CA 94062. 

1768208vl 
385 


Insert offset folio 352 here 81259.352

Associnlcd Buitders 

and Contractors of 

California 

May 28, 2013 

By Electronic Mail 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and HWNdous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hwnrdous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, De20S15 

RE: Statement for May 28 Field Hearing on Cali fornia High Speed Rail 

Dear Chainnan Denham and Ranking Member Brown: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a letter for the record regarding the Cali fornia High Speed Rail Project. 

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is a national trade association representing 22,000 members from more than 

19,000 construction and industry-related finns. Founded on the merit shop philosophy, ABC helps members win work 

and deliver that work safely, ethically and profitably for the bettenment of the communities in which they work. 

ABC California comprised offive local ABC California chapters as part of 72 ABC chapters nationwide, encourages 

government officials to procure public works through fair and open competition by ensuring a level playing field for all 

qualified contractors and their skilled employees, regardless of whether they belong to a union. Experience demonstrates 

this approach helps government agencies provide taxpayers with the best possible construction product at the best 

possible price. ABC Califomia's craft and apprentice training programs arc recognized by the California Dep3l1mcnt of 

Industrial Relations and cover a "ide variety of skilled trades including: electricaL plumbing. sheet metal, HV AC 

painters. laborers, carpenters, heavy equipment operators. mobile crane and welding. 
386 


Insert offset folio 353 here 81259.353

The merit shop contracting community is troubled by a project labor agreement (PLA) the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority (HSRA) has mandated' on the California High-Speed Rail prQject. The HSRA calls this agreement a 

Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), but it contains the same anti-competitive and costly tenns as most PLAs' and it 

will not benefit the majority of California's construction industry. 

ABC California believes in increasing opportunities for all workers regardless of their aftiliation. The CBAlPLA 

seriously limits California workers, like the nearly 1,000 students that are cluTcnlly enrolled in ABC's apprenticeShip 

progranls, from working on this project because the definition of apprentice in Section 1.2 only recognizes apprentices 

registered and participating in Joint Labor/Management Apprenticeship Programs as opposed to all state approved 

apprenticeship programs. 

ABC is opposed to government-mandated PLAs because these agreements typically restrict competition,' increase 

costs,' cause delays,' discriminate against nonunion employees and place merit shop contmctors at a signiticant 

competitive disadvantage.' Typical government-mandated PLAs are nothing more than anti-competitive schemes that 

end open and fair bidding on taxpayer-funded projects. PLAs should never be mandated; instead, a contractor may 

voluntarily adopt a PLA if the tinn believes it would help promote the economy and efticiency in which a construction 

project is delivered to a government agency.' 

11,e HSRA ha, imposed a PLA on the f.ve prime contractors prequalified to submit a technical proposal and price 

proposal as part of the second phase orthe project's two-phase best value procurement process. A number of qualified 

and experienced finns would be interested in working as subcontractors for these short-listed prime contractors, ifnot for 

the PL.A they are required to sign by the HSRA. 

The following provisions in the HSRA PLA are particularly objectionable to nonunion companies and their employees, 

and will restrict competition, increase costs, and may violate federal contracting rules and regulations. 

I. Section 7.1 and Section 7.2 require nonunion companies to obtain most or all of their employees from union 

hiring halls. The agreement prohibits linns ftom using most of their existing workforce. Section 7.1.2A allows 

nonunion contractors to lLSC a maximum of five members of their existing core workforce. The rest of their 

workforce for this project must be hired ftom the appropriate union hiring hall. This provision is problematic 

because finns can't use most of their trained, productive employees. In addition, it provides unions with the 

opportunity to dispatch "salts" with contlicts of interest to nonunion companies. Untlliniliar union workers may 

be of unknown quality and may delay time- and cost-sensitive constmction schedules that add uncertainty to the 

ability of a contractor to deliver a quality. on-time and on-budget constmction product to the HSRA. 

29uSC ~§ \51-169 ScctlOns8(e)and(t)oftheNLRA29USC §§ 

pcnmt employers and Ull!ons In the constructlOn mdustf) to enter into 
387 


Insert offset folio 354 here 81259.354

2. Section 6.2 requires the few nonunion employees allowed on the project to pay nonrefundable union dues 

andlor fees to the union as a condition of working on the PLA project, even though they have decided to work 

for a nonunion employer.s 

3. Section 6.1 requires unions to be the exclusive bargaining representative for workers during the life of the 

project. When agreeing to participate in a PLA project, the decision to agree to union representation is made by 

the employer (through the act of agreeing to the PLA by signing a letter of assent) rather than the employees 9 

Construction employees often argue that forced union representatiorr-even for one project-is an infiingement 

of their workplace rights and runs contrary to their intentional decision not to join a union. 

4. Section 2.3 and Section 3.1 require contractors to follow union work rules, which changes the way they 

otherwise would assign employees to specific job tasks-requiring contractors to abandon an efficient labor 

utilimtion practice called "multiskilling" and instead assign work based on inefficient and archaic union craft 

jurisdictional boundaries that increase labor costs. Open shop contractors achieve signincant labor cost savings 

through multiskilling. in which workers possess a range of skills that are appropriate for more than one work 

process and are used flexibly across multiple trades on a project or within an organization. 111is practice has 

tremendous labor productivity advantages t()r contractors, but it is forbidden by typical union work rules and, by 

extension, PLAs. 1O 

5. Section 8.1, Section 8.2 and Section 3.3 require nonunion companies to pay their existing nonunion employees' 

and new union workers' health and welfare benefits to union trust funds and be bound by their plan rules, even 

though these companies have their own benefits plans. Existing nonunion employees cannot access any of their 

union benefits accrued during the life of the PLA project unless they decide to leave their nonunion employer, 

join a union and remain with the union until vested. I I Few nonunion employees will join a union after working 

on a PLA project, so in order to ensure nonunion employees have retirement and beneiits plans that actually 

help their employees, companies pay benetits twice: once to the union plans and once to the existing company 

plan. Nonunion contractors have to factor this double benefit cost into their bid, which needlessly increases costs 

and puts them at a competitive disadvantage against union contractors that are not saddled with these 

unnecessary costs. In addition, paying into underfunded and mismanaged union-affiliated multi-employer 

pension plans may expose merit shop contractors to massive pension withdrawal liabilities. Depending on the 

health of a union-managed multi-employer pension plan, signing a PLA could bankrupt a contractor or prevent 

it from qualifYing for construction bonds nceded to build luture projects for other clients. 12 

Without these anti-competitive and discriminatory provisions that discourage otherwise qualified contractors from 

competing for public projects, unions rarely agree to concessions regarding labor peace, work schedules and other 

provisions that are the cornerstones of the alleged benefits of a PLA. PLA proponents require these provisions because 

on NonUnion Workers Under 

to perform under govemment-mandated 

PtA':> suffer a reductwn In pay at 20 percent PLA~ force employers to employee bend)ts into UnlO[lfunds. but employcl.'5 \\'111 never Sl'<.: the benefHs of the employer contnbutions lIllkss they Jom a umon vr.:sted In these plans 

Ixndlts. 
388 


Insert offset folio 355 here 81259.355

they are crucial to reducing competition and ensuring union contmctors have an unfair advantage over nonunion 

contractors, and union tradespeople enjoy a virtual monopoly building taxpayer-funded projects. 

ABC Califomia is concemed the teons and conditions of this PLA will discourage competition trom qualified 

contractors and their existing skilled workforces. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) most recent repoft indicates 86 

percent ofthe U.S. private construction industry workforce does not belong to a union. '3 In Califomia.just 15.9 percent 

of the private construction workforce belongs to a union. 14 However, many ABC membcrs in California and across the 

country employ union tradespeople, utilize unionized subcontractors and work hannoniously with union tradespeople on 

jobsites without the need 10r a PLA mandate. 

By mandating this PLA, the HSRA has shown favoritism toward a narrow class of unionized contractors supportive of 

PLAs at the expense of both union" and nonunion contractors opposed to govemment-mandated PLAs. This needless 

discrimination may not meet !Cderal rules requiring "full and open competition" for federally assisted projects, as this 

PLA deters a particular class of hidders (i.e .. union and nonunion contractor bidders harmed by the PLA) from 

participating in the bid process for reasons unrelated to their ability to competently complete the substantive work of the 

project. 

In addition, I urge the committee to closely review additional provisions in the PLA related to local hiring and small and 

disadvantaged husiness utililations goals that may violate federal contracting regulations and can he achieved without a 

PLA. '6 

Even if the PLA passes legal muster, it remains bad public JXllicy. It will not improve tile economy and elliciency in 

federally assisted contracting, it violates the spirit of fair and open competition in government contracting, and it will 

increase costs. 

In a September 2009 study, the Beacon Hill Institute (BBI) predicted government-mandated PLAs would add 12 percent 

to 18 percent in construction costs to federal projects subjected to PLA requirements without providing corresponding 

benefits to taxpayers or construction owners. To determine this cost increase. BHI ll,ed the results of three previous 

studies measuring the effect government-mandated PLAs had on school construction projects subject to prevailing wage 

laws in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York.'7 

BHI's findings have heen con-oborated by hath empirical and anecdotal evidence. For example, in 2011 the National 

University System Institute for Policy Research relea.,ed a study that found California school construction projects built 

using PLAs experienced increa.,ed costs of 13 percent to IS percent, or $28.90 to $32.49 per square foot, compared to 

projects that did not ll,e a PLA." 

Recent bid results of a U.S. Department of Labor Job Corps Center in Manchester, New Hampshire, demonstrate how 

government-mandated PLAs reduce competition and increase costs on projects funded by federal tax dollars. When the 

Job Corps Centers PLA requirement was removed due to litigation and the project was rebid without a PLA mandate. 

the numher of pre-qualified companies bidding on the project increased threetold and the low bidder suhmitted an offer 
389 


Insert offset folio 356 here 81259.356

thal was approximately 16.5 percent icss than the lo\vest hid 5ubmitt(;..'(i when the prl:jcc{ wa, su~i('ct to a PL/\ 

mandate,l') 

ABC appreciates the opportunity to ,hare its perspeetive on gOl'cmmcnt-mandated PLAs. We believe these anticompetitive and costly agreements should not be mandated on tlte Caiiiomia I ligh Sp<,-ed Rail pr<,ject and other IL'(lcraliy 

assisted constmction prqjccts Heros:; the United States_ \Vc encourage the subcommittee to investigate tIllS troubling 

scheme and direct the Caliiomia HSRA 10 proccOO in the spirit of tair and open competition. Doing so wi!! ensure the 

wise lise of federal do!!nrs and help Ole California HSRA provide taxpayers with the best possible construction product 

at tile best po"ible price. 

Sinct:rdv. 

QcpU 

ABC of::-CaliH)mia President 

ce: ABC Calitbrnia Chapters 

"'!ember> ofSubcommittec on Railroads. Pipelines. and Ilil7"rdouslVlatcriuls 
390 


Insert offset folio 357 here 81259.357

6-27-2013 

Congressman Jeff Denham. CA- \0 

1730 Longworth HOB 

Washington. DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Denham, 

Bakersfield citizens will suffer more extensive, widespread and severe impacts than any 

other community in the high speed rail project's proposed path. 

All currently available sources of funding including American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

Federal Railroad Administration and proposed state bond sales will not be sufficient to construct 

the high speed rail project into Bakersfield. The High Speed Rail Authority has acknowledged 

the fact that funds will be exhausted for what has turned into "a new Amtrak rail corridor" far 

north of Bakersfield between the communities of Shafter and Wasco. There is no detailed 

funding plan to complete the proposed corridor from the Shafter area into Bakersfield. 

Additional funding for the project is uncertain at best and the possibility that funds may never 

materialize to complete the project into Bakersfield is extremely high. 

Environmental studies for the three proposed rail alignment alternatives in Bakersfield are in 

many cases only feet apart from each other. They are not true alternatives because all three will 

cause similar extensive and severe impacts to the city of Bakersfield. All three of the alternative 

alignments include 12 to 15 miles of elevated rail viaduct as high as 96 feet with an elevated 

station planned to be constructed over the top and through the center of the city. The Bakersfield 

environmental study abruptly ends dangling 60 feet above Oswell Street in east Bakersfield. 

Imagine the loud roar and clakity-clack noise of diesel powered Amtrak trains traveling high 

above your city and neighborhoods in the name of progress. 

All three of the elevated alignment alternatives will unnecessarily impact the property values and 

quality of life of untold thousands of Bakersfield citizens who live, work and play within sight 

and sound distance of the poorly planned elevated train route. Environmental studies of less 

destructive, true alternative rail alignments in the Bakersfield area have not been evaluated. For 

example. a peripheral rail alignment and station located in close proximity, but outside 

metropolitan Bakersfield may cost much less to construct and cause far less extensive impacts. 

If the Authority certifies a preferred alignment for unfunded portions of thc project from an 

undetermined nut orchard somewhere between Wasco and Shaftcr continuing south, over the top 

and through the ccnter of Bakersfield, all property values locatcd within that alignment will 

immediately bc destroyed and all properties located within sight and sound distance of the 

proposed elevated alignment in Bakersfield will be severciy devalued. According to statistics 

found in Appendix 3.12-C of the High Speed Train Project's Revised Draft Environmental 

Impact Report and Supplemental Study documents. 31,719 residents were located within half a 

mile of the alignment alternatives in Bakersfield in year 2000. Those statistics are not current. so 

the impacted resident figure is undoubtedly much higher today. The Authority will not reimburse 

property owners for "south of the tracks" devaluations caused by their poorly planned alignment. 
391 


Insert offset folio 358 here 81259.358

Page 2 oD 

All properties located where no environmental studies have been conducted from Oswell Street, 

east toward the Tehachapi Mountains will also suffer immediate and severe property 

devaluations. Thousands of property devaluations in the metropolitan Bakersfield area will 

severely diminish local property tax revenues. If the Authority certifies a preferred alignment 

for unfunded portions of the project, Kern County corporate and small business entities, 

Bakersfield city assets, private property owners and property tax revenues will 

unnecessarily suffer for a poorly planned rail alignment that in all probability will never be 

funded or constructed. 

Statistics provided by the Bakersfield Planning Department show that city facilities impacted by 

the alignment alternatives include the South Mill Creek Project, Westside Parkway, Corporation 

Yard, Convention CenterlRabobank parking, Communications/Police Building, City Hall South 

parking lot, street closures/pennanent and temporary and major road grade separations including 

Wcst Beltway, Kratzmeyer, Renfro and Jenkins roads. 

Bakersfield community impacts include Bakersfield High School, Mercy Hospital, Bakersfield 

Commons mixed use project, Bakersfield Homeless Shelter, as many as 8 Churches and a 

Christian School. 186 to 272 homes will be destroycd displacing 569 - 833 residents and 135 to 

302 business locations will be destroyed affecting 1,040 - 1,521 jobs. The train station will 

destroy between 6 and 22 business locations, affecting 174 - 229 jobs. 

The Bakersfield Planning Department's statistics for unresolved environmental issues include air 

quality, noise, vibration, traffic and transportation network, socioeconomic/environmental 

justice, land use compatibility, aesthetics / visual, lack of specific mitigation, absence of viable 

route alternatives, cumulative impacts and impacts diluted by having two separate EIR's 

a\beginning and ending at Oswell Street dividing the city 

Paramount Farms has a huge Industrial Complex on 7th Standard Road and Santa Fe Way that 

will be reduced by one third by the proposed alignment impacting an unknown number of jobs 

and taxable revenue. Occidental Petroleum owns several producing oil wells north of Bakersfield 

that will be impacted. It is unknown how much taxable revenue will be lost, but it will be 

significant. 

In response to the widespread and severe negative impacts the high speed rail project will cause 

Bakersfield and other Kern County communities, the cities of Bakersfield, Wasco and Taft as 

well as the Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolutions of Opposition to the high 

speed rail project. If the Authority certifies the unfunded portions of the project, the widespread 

and severe impacts caused by that irresponsible act will make imminent numerous corporate and 

local government agency lawsuits. 

Months ago, Bakersfield city management made a very reasonable request to the High-Speed 

Rail Authority. It was pointed out that all possible sources of available funding for the project 

will run out far north of Bakersfield and that future funding for the project was speculative. City 

Manager Alan Tandy proposed that the rail authority take a timeout before certifying unfunded 
392 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 359 here 81259.359

Page 3 of3 

portions of the project in the Shafter and Wasco area, south into Bakersfield and work together to 

plan a less destructive alignment in the greater Bakersfield area. To date, the Authority has not 

certified any rail alignment south of Fresno. Time will tell if the Authority intends to honor 

Bakersfield City Management's common sense request. 

All San Joaquin Valley communities, "especially Bakersfield" will sufTer unacceptable 

destruction if the High Speed Rail Authority certifies a preferred rail alignment and station 

location from the three current alternatives. The entire state of California will pay an 

unacceptably high price for a new Amtrak corridor that will divert billions of dollars away from 

funding water projects, new road infrastructure and maintenance. California Legislators have 

already diverted hundreds of millions of dollars annually from semi-truck road fees, "that were 

intended to pay for road repair" to pay a year or two of the 35 -year term debt service 

Californian's will bc obligated to pay if the state is actually able to sell high speed rail 

construction bonds to reckless investors. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Jeff Taylor 

b 

a